PRIVATE BUSINESS

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill

Motion made,
	That the promoters of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill which originated in this House in the last Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the bill in the present session of Parliament; and the petition for the bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
	That the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office no later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;
	That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the last Parliament;
	That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House;
	That in the present session of Parliament the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the last Parliament, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
	That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions

CABINET OFFICE

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Civil Service Recruitment

Helen Jackson: What steps he is taking to ensure equality of opportunity in recruitment to the civil service.

Christopher Leslie: The Government are strongly committed to equality of opportunity and to creating an open and modern civil service that fully reflects the United Kingdom.
	Departments have set themselves challenging diversity targets for their staff at all levels, nationally and regionally. Each year heads of department account personally to Ministers on their progress and on future plans.

Helen Jackson: I thank the Minister for that answer. May I offer my congratulations? I was glad to see that in October last year nearly half the civil service were women and nearly 7 per cent. were from ethnic minorities, but what goes wrong after that, because fewer than one in five, or 20 per cent. of those female civil servants reach the senior grades? What happens under the internal promotion procedures? I am sure that he will be aware that the Labour party has taken action. Will he ensure that the Government do the same?

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend has the statistics down pat. It is true that half of the civil service are women but that only just over 20 per cent. of the senior ranks are female. There is a lot of work to do and we have set challenging targets—35 per cent. of senior grades to be held by women in 2005. A lot of work can be done not only at the stage of encouraging applications, but when we shortlist and assess people for promotion. There is, however, a lot more work to be done, but I take my hon. Friend's comments to heart.

Virginia Bottomley: I applaud the steps that the Government have taken to encourage and develop the careers of women and of people from black and ethnic minorities. Does the Minister appreciate that people joining the civil service are joining a public not a political service? Will he personally take steps to ensure that fellow Ministers appreciate that the independence and integrity of the civil service are fundamental? Whenever his colleagues develop a blame culture or respond to adverse headlines with "Shoot the manager", they do a disservice to equality in the service as well as to the service at large.

Christopher Leslie: The civil service is a fine institution and long may it continue to be so and to be independent and impartial. There are a number of ways in which we ensure that. The code of conduct for the civil service is scrupulously observed. It is also important that we get new talent and blood into the civil service to ensure that we have diversity not just for the sake of it but to enrich the talent that can serve and improve public services at large.

Policy Objectives

Bob Blizzard: If he will make a statement on his role in ensuring more effective delivery of policy objectives.

Barbara Roche: The Deputy Prime Minister's main role is to support and deputise as necessary for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to help oversee the delivery of key Government priorities.

Bob Blizzard: I welcome that new delivery role. I will give my hon. Friend an example of why it is necessary. Earlier this year, because of the crisis in the fishing industry, the Government allocated £5.5 million for fishing communities, which was wonderful news. Six months later, however, we realised that the way in which the money had been distributed throughout the country was bizarre. Some of the things that it has been spent on bear no relation to the reason why the fund was set up.
	Although Ministers issued guidelines, which stated that they did not want to be prescriptive, my local council maintains that the rules on spending are prohibitive. When we end up with Lowestoft, which is the country's third largest fishing port and accounts for 10 per cent. of the nation's catch, being offered only £65,000 out of £5.5 million, something is wrong. Will my hon. Friend consider that matter and the accountability of the regional development agencies, which were asked to deliver the initiative?

Barbara Roche: Of course I understand my hon. Friend's concern. He has raised this issue in the House before. The delivery unit's remit is to deal with key priorities on health, education, transport and reducing crime. I will undertake, however, to bring my hon. Friend's concerns to the attention of the Department.

Mark Oaten: Can the Minister explain how the Cabinet Office can have any real influence on the delivery of policy when the Treasury sets Government and policy targets and controls the budgets that Departments have to deliver those policies?

Barbara Roche: Of course the Treasury has a key role to play, through the usual arrangements, to ensure that all Departments keep to their priorities and deliver. The Prime Minister's delivery unit, which is working successfully alongside the Treasury, in its role of co-ordinator, is ensuring that these matters are dealt with.

Andy Reed: Does the Minister recognise that to meet the need to deliver locally we must have excellent public servants? There are many of those throughout the country; however, they are constrained by the level of initiatives that the Government are introducing. Will the delivery unit try to reduce the number of initiatives and the number of forms and applications that have to be completed to implement the excellent policies that need to be delivered to local constituents? Will she ensure greater co-ordination across the board to offer them more realistic opportunities?

Barbara Roche: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Part of my job is to go and talk to local councillors and to people in Government offices. We need to ensure that some of our public funding programmes are much more accessible to local communities and local groups. We need to simplify those programmes, and that is exactly the sort of work on which we are engaged.

Emergency Planning

Sandra Gidley: If he will make a statement on his Department's recent activity regarding emergency planning.

Christopher Leslie: The civil contingencies secretariat at the Cabinet Office is co-ordinating the work of the Civil Contingencies Cabinet Committee, chaired by the Home Secretary, and is comprehensively reviewing the nation's ability to deal with emergencies. The secretariat is also taking forward the review of emergency planning in England and Wales announced by the Cabinet Office in August.

Sandra Gidley: Is the Minister aware that the emergency planning officers who are responsible for delivering those plans on the ground have received only two communications from central Government since 11 September, one of which was to ask for the confirmation of a fax number? When the Minister's Department was asked whether it had responsibility for emergency planning, the response was, "Kind of." Is that acceptable and does the Minister agree that a Minister of Cabinet rank should be appointed to take charge of civil contingencies until further notice? The current situation is unacceptable. I would like to feel that somebody is taking overall responsibility; I am sure the House would and I am convinced the public would.

Christopher Leslie: There is a Minister of Cabinet rank in charge of civil contingencies: the Home Secretary, who chairs the Civil Contingencies Committee of the Cabinet. The Cabinet Office helps, through its secretariat, to co-ordinate the activities of all Departments; well worked plans are in place across all the critical elements of the national infrastructure to make sure that Britain stands ready to cope with whatever emergency situations may arise.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend is aware of my interest and that of my constituents in the whole issue of emergency planning and of the work that has recently been done locally. I am sure that he will join me in congratulating the officers of the local authority and the public servants who have delivered their functions so well. Can he explain why the role of emergency planning is not firmly established on a statutory basis?

Christopher Leslie: The review announced by the Cabinet Office in August is indeed examining the question of statutory footing for emergency planning. In fact, the consultation period for that document ends today. The Government will be considering the legislative background to emergency planning. In general, having worked closely on such matters, I believe that the arrangements and structures that are in place are adequate and capable of dealing with a whole series of eventualities.

Nicholas Winterton: I am genuinely seeking information and help from the Minister. [Interruption.] Does he accept that foot and mouth was an emergency, and will he therefore give some consideration, through his office, to re-establishing the regional committees of the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Those committees could have done an amazingly helpful job in reducing the terrible and horrific impact of foot and mouth. The committees were phased out, but if they had been in operation they could have played a valuable role.

Christopher Leslie: As with flooding, there are lessons for all Departments to learn from foot and mouth. A number of those lessons have been incorporated in the contingencies that are now in place to deal with events post-11 September. With specific reference to foot and mouth, I understand that the Government offices in the regions were significant contributors to regional operations centres during the whole crisis. That is certainly an area in which more work can be done and it will be developed in the future.

Joan Walley: May I press my right hon. Friend further on the role of the civil contingencies secretariat? I greatly welcome the recent consultation on emergency planning, but it is vital that we place it on a statutory basis. Given that the Home Secretary has taken some of that work forward, and although we do not wish to be alarmist about events after 11 September, I still believe that it is important that we give the Cabinet Office all possible support to ensure that organisations such as the Chartered Institution of Environmental Health have an active role in influencing what is placed on the statute book. Such legislation should be properly implemented and properly monitored.

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend makes several useful points, particularly about the expertise that is available from outside Government on emergency planning; it is not the preserve of Government Departments alone. I believe that it is our duty to ensure that we have plans to detect and prepare against any eventuality as well as respond and recover, and the Cabinet Office will help to co-ordinate that under the leadership of the Home Secretary.

Special Advisers

Michael Fabricant: If he will publish new guidelines regarding the conduct of special advisers.

Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the guidance his Department gives on the ethical standards that should be applied by ministerial special advisers.

John Prescott: Since the general election, we have published a revised model contract, setting out the duties, responsibilities and terms and conditions that will apply to all special advisers. The model contract incorporates a new code of conduct consolidating the guidance for special advisers, the civil service code and the principles of public life taken from the first Nolan report.

Michael Fabricant: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his answer. Ignoring for a moment the question of Jo Moore and ignoring for a moment the question of civil servants who have resigned from the press offices of various Departments, can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that there are now 81 special advisers? Is he aware that when the Labour Government came to office there were only 38? Does he accept that people would be more satisfied with the Government's performance if they were to reduce the number of special advisers to that which they inherited?

John Prescott: I can confirm that there are 81 special advisers in comparison to 3,500 senior civil servants. Indeed, I can confirm that the number of special advisers has increased from 38—the number in post when we first came to office. That means that the number of advisers has almost doubled—[Hon. Members: "More than doubled."] Well, more than doubled if they like, but it more than doubled under the Tory Administration, when it reached 38. If the hon. Gentleman believes that, in those 18 years, the Tories' record in office was advantaged by doubling the advisers, I leave him to make a judgment about the current number of advisers.

Julian Lewis: Here is a straightforward question for the Deputy Prime Minister. If a special adviser in the Cabinet Office had put out an e-mail saying that the occasion of an international terrorist disaster was a very good day to bury bad news, would the Deputy Prime Minister have sacked that person or kept him or her in his or her job?

John Prescott: It has been made clear both by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and by the Prime Minister, and it is my view, that it was a stupid judgment and should not have happened. The woman has apologised for it. She has been dealt with under the disciplinary procedures. Under those circumstances, I think that the matter is now shut.

Tony Wright: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that a lot of nonsense is talked about special advisers? The last thing that we want or need is new guidelines on special advisers. What we really do need is a civil service Act, giving constitutional protection to the civil service. We have long promised it, so surely now we can deliver it.

John Prescott: We have made it absolutely clear that a civil service Act will be considered. My hon. Friend and the Select Committee on Public Administration, which he chairs, have made several recommendations to which we will reply soon. In fact, the Cabinet Secretary is to appear before the Committee tomorrow, when the members of the Committee will be able to hear some of our responses to its recommendations.
	On special advisers, the House may be interested to know that I happened to look at the membership of the shadow Cabinet. Five of its members are former special advisers, and there are four more on the Tory Front Bench. I do not know whether that adds to the better judgment of the shadow Cabinet; we wait to see.

Brian Iddon: Whose advice do the Government value the most—that of their special advisers, or that of all the Back Benchers?

John Prescott: We value the advice of both. The special advisers play a special, useful role in ensuring that Back Benchers on both sides of the House communicate their views to Ministers.

Tim Collins: May I say first that I much look forward to crossing swords with the Deputy Prime Minister? I dare say that we will have some clashes, but I freely acknowledge that he is one of the most honest and honourable members of the Government? May I remind him that on 12 January last year, the then Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Lord Neill, said:
	"There is great advantage from the special adviser system. But the numbers have been burgeoning. There should now be consideration given to introducing an overall number."
	So, nearly two years ago, Lord Neill recommended a limit on numbers. What is the Deputy Prime Minister's reaction to that?

John Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and also welcome him to the Front Bench. I think that he should have recorded a special interest, as he was a special adviser himself before taking up his job, nevertheless, I make no criticism, and I look forward to the exchanges across the Dispatch Box in future. The question that he asks has been posed to us by the Select Committee, and we shall give a proper response to that matter shortly.

Tim Collins: I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for that answer. It is, of course, very nearly two years since the Neill committee made its recommendation on this issue. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, has said that he wants a civil service Bill to be introduced rapidly. If such a Bill is introduced, will it include such a numeric limit on special advisers?

John Prescott: Again, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it would be right for us to respond first to the Select Committee, as it has asked us that question. I have made it clear that a civil service Bill will be presented, and the House will then have a chance to debate the issues that he has raised, but it is right and proper for me to give the first response to the Select Committee. I do not know whether it will also deal with what has happened to the Short money—the amount of money given to the Opposition has increased from £1 million to £3 million a year.

Tim Collins: As the Deputy Prime Minister is being so honest and forthright in his responses to the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, does he agree with the said hon. Gentleman that Jo Moore's remarks were
	"incompatible with any idea of public service"?
	Why is that woman still in office?

John Prescott: When I appeared before the Select Committee on the occasion of those remarks I told the Chairman that I did not agree with his judgment. It was his opinion, but I have to give a proper response from the Government, and that is yet to come. Was there any time when the hon. Gentleman, as a special adviser, gave a bad judgment?

Harry Barnes: This round of questions was started by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), whose questions I have always found fascinating—mind, I have never really thought of him as a Tory; I have always thought of him as more of a Whig.
	Is it not the case that advisers should advise and Ministers should make decisions? Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South–East (Dr. Iddon) on advisers, Back Benchers can give good and solid advice on occasion, and is not it a great pity that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions did not take my advice on Biwaters when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Had he done so, that plant might still be open. Presumably, he acted on internal advice.

John Prescott: My hon. Friend has raised that issue several times in the House, and I cannot really say any more than my right hon. Friend told him, but it is our job to take advice from advisers and from Back Benchers as well. I might say that we would give more importance to the Back-Bencher's view, but at the end of the day, it is the responsibility of Ministers to make a decision and then be accountable to the House.

PIU Energy Review

Simon Thomas: If he will make a statement on the scope and timetable of the performance and innovation unit's energy review.

Barbara Roche: The scope of the PIU energy review is to look at strategic issues surrounding energy policy for Great Britain to 2050. The PIU will report to the Prime Minister by the end of the year.

Simon Thomas: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can I draw her attention to the increasing concerns regarding the new electricity trading arrangements, as outlined in the Ofgem report that all Members have received? Will she confirm that the energy review currently being undertaken will consider those concerns and will bring forward proposals regarding those arrangements? If the report comes to Government by the end of the year, what timetable does she have to ensure that they bring forward their response to it in the next 12 months?

Barbara Roche: I know that the hon. Gentleman has had a long-standing interest in energy matters. The review will take account of the longer-term potential contribution from all renewable sources of energy and it will also consider how energy investments of all kinds can be reconciled with the concerns of local communities. I certainly undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of the review.

John Smith: I should like to reinforce the comments of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). Will my hon. Friend assure me that, in any review, special consideration will be given to older coal-fired power stations, such as Aberthaw? They are strategically important in guaranteeing the security of the supply of electricity to areas such as south Wales and in their ability to burn low volatile coal from the south Wales valleys.

Barbara Roche: Any review of energy needs must consider coal. I inform my hon. Friend and the House that a separate review of the potential of cleaner coal technology was announced in parallel with the PIU review.

Foot and Mouth

Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the regional co-ordination of policy relating to the foot and mouth outbreak.

Barbara Roche: The Government offices in the regions have supplied staff at all levels to regional operations centres responding to foot and mouth disease. Policy matters continue to be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with whom my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has had a number of informal discussions.

Anne McIntosh: I thank the Minister for that reply. Her Department is responsible for regional co-ordination, so has it assessed how policy was handled in the worst affected areas of Devon, North Yorkshire and, especially, Cumbria? Will the House have an opportunity to debate Devon county council's report on the mishandling of the situation by the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and will she agree to a full public inquiry into the handling of foot and mouth?

Barbara Roche: The Government have already announced the setting up of two national inquiries and they will begin straight away. She is right to say that lessons have to be learned, and the inquiry that took place in Devon will feed through into the two national inquiries.
	I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that the Government offices made an enormous contribution, with staff working very hard and long hours to deal with the outbreak. As part of the inquiries and more generally, we will examine how those offices operated. I pay tribute to the Government offices in her region that worked so hard and diligently.

Hugh Bayley: Will my hon. Friend accept that not just farming, but the whole rural economy, has been hit by foot and mouth? In particular, the leisure and tourism industries have been hit, so when the Government co-ordinate their response to regenerate the economy of rural areas, will they pay adequate attention to tourism?

Barbara Roche: We certainly will. It is right to focus on tourism, and that is why I was delighted to spend part of last Easter in my hon. Friend's wonderful constituency.

Disabled Employees

Tom Clarke: What steps are being taken to increase the numbers of people with disabilities in employment in each Department of Government.

Christopher Leslie: The Government are committed to employing disabled people, and all Departments have targets to increase the number of disabled people they employ. Good progress is being made, but a lot more work needs to be done.

Tom Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that all the evidence shows that people with disabilities have an outstanding record once they are given an opportunity to work? Will the Government therefore redouble their efforts to make sure that opportunities are available at every level in the civil service and that those opportunities extend to people with learning difficulties?

Christopher Leslie: My right hon. Friend touches on the precise point: diversity is not simply about reflecting the nation for its own sake, but about enriching the skills base and experiences across the civil service. Disabled people have a great deal to offer to improving public services throughout the nation. A variety of different tasks are under way in the Cabinet Office to increase the proportion of disabled people in the civil service, but more work needs to be done.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Julian Brazier: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 31 October.

John Prescott: I have been asked to reply.
	The House will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in the middle east. He was in Syria earlier today and is now in Saudi Arabia. His visit to the middle east emphasises the enormous importance that the Government attach to building the widest possible coalition against the scourge of international terrorism. It also re-emphasises the Government's total determination to do all that we can to reinvigorate the middle east peace process. My right hon. Friend has been tireless in his efforts on both those matters, and I am sure that the House will wish him well.

Julian Brazier: In the light of the rather complacent reply on emergency planning for terrorism given a moment ago by the Parliamentary Secretary, when will the Government sort out some radios so that the police, fire brigade and ambulance service can talk to each other, and to the military, on the same frequency during a crisis?

John Prescott: It is undoubtedly true that a number of lessons have been learned from the problems of foot and mouth and, in particular, flooding, when increased communication between the military, the police service and the fire brigade was necessary. Some work has been done on that. It is now being handled by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the contingency committee. We will do everything possible to improve communication.

Peter Pike: The Government recognise that even in these troubled times problems at home remain important. My right hon. Friend visited Burnley recently and met the taskforce investigating the aftermath of the disturbances in Burnley in June. He also saw some of the 3,500 empty houses in my constituency and will be aware of the redundancies at Michelin as a result of the factory closure and job losses in the aerospace industry. Is it not a fact that the Government believe that the problems can be resolved only by a Labour Government working with local councils? Will he undertake to visit Burnley at an early date to show that the Government give their full support to Burnley borough council in its efforts to resolve those problems?

John Prescott: How could I possibly disagree with such a conclusion? Indeed, how could I resist an invitation to visit Burnley? I shall certainly take that into account when I am in the area.
	My hon. Friend made his point about the housing problem clear to me when I visited Burnley some time ago. The council has, I think, received £2 million for housing investment. He also mentions job losses at Michelin. That is a concern. Although there have been some job gains in his area, Burnley is worried about job losses, the need to do more about housing and the recent disturbances. Lord Clarke's report is considering those matters and one of my ministerial colleagues is also investigating them, with a view, we hope, to reporting in December. However, I will visit my hon. Friend's constituency if I get the opportunity in the near future.

Michael Ancram: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the first objective of the current campaign in Afghanistan is now the removal of the Taliban?

John Prescott: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position as deputy Leader in the House. He has held that job for two different Prime Ministers, which shows he has pretty shifty footwork.
	Our objectives are clear. Yesterday's Hansard shows that the right hon. Gentleman asked about those objectives and that they were confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. They remain the same. In a speech yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that our objectives are clear. Achieving the removal of the Taliban is not a clear objective, but it is a possible consequence of the Taliban giving protection to bin Laden, because the United Nations resolution made it absolutely clear that anyone in that position declares themselves to be an enemy. That is clearly relevant to our objectives.

Michael Ancram: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his initial comments. He shows himself to be highly prescient in predicting the future of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He will indeed shortly become Prime Minister and I shall be pleased to serve him in that position.
	Returning to the current crisis, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the greatest obstacle to humanitarian aid in Afghanistan is the Taliban regime, that the best way to avert humanitarian disaster is to replace the Taliban with a broad-based Administration, and that the military policy is in a very real sense the humanitarian policy?

John Prescott: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we have humanitarian objectives. In addition, we have always said that the diplomatic action was of equal importance to the military action in restoring to Afghanistan a Government who are acceptable to the people. As he knows, discussions about possible alternatives are continuing in the UN. In the meantime, we have rightly taken military action to get rid of the bases where terrorists are trained.

Michael Ancram: Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that, contrary to some recent comment, the purpose of the air campaign has been to degrade the Taliban's military capability, to undermine their ability to promote or shelter terrorism and to curtail their ability to oppress their own people? Does he agree that the air campaign has been an appropriate first phase in achieving the agreed overall objectives in the war against terrorism, but that the time has now come to set out clearly the specific objectives of the next phase, which will presumably involve the use of ground forces?

John Prescott: I certainly agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman has said about the military action and what it has achieved so far in terms of degrading the capacity for terrorist activity in Afghanistan and the surrounding region. The whole House agrees on the need to consider long-term objectives for the long haul. The statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday answered some of the questions. He said that we will now begin "a steady process" that will continue over the winter, building up to spring next year,
	"of fragmenting, undermining and eventually destroying the Taliban regime as a serious threat capable of inflicting any more damage on their country and the outside world."
	That answers all three questions to which we have so far addressed ourselves.

Jim Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recent improvements in school standards in Dorset, while welcome, have been achieved in spite of unfair funding through the standard spending assessment? A child in Dorset currently attracts £132 less than a child in neighbouring Hampshire. Is that fair, and are the Government still committed to reforming local government finance and ensuring that all our children in all our schools receive fair funding?

John Prescott: It is quite nice to answer a question from a Labour Member for South Dorset, where we launched our campaign and gained a considerable victory at the general election. I have no doubt that Labour's record on education finance and the improvements that we were able to make played a major role in that victory.
	A lot has been done, but a lot more remains to do. Reforming our education funding system is an important priority and we must get the new formula right. When I was Secretary of State at the relevant Department, I asked local authorities for their recommendations on SSA formulas. They came up with 24 different formulas. The task is not easy, but at least we can say that since 1997–98 education spending in my hon. Friend's constituency has increased in real terms by 20 per cent. That is a considerable improvement. In addition, Dorset's SSA for 2001–02 has risen by £7 million to more than £151 million. None the less, changes must be made to that form of financing, and we are committed to making them.

Alan Beith: We wish the Prime Minister well in his diplomatic mission, not least because bin Laden poses a threat to just about every Muslim country and every Muslim community in the world, as well as to the west.
	May I turn to domestic issues? Bearing in mind the fact that, over the last few weeks, the Government have reversed their policies on Railtrack, cannabis, vouchers for asylum seekers and possibly even student fees, which are the subject of a review, is their second term going to be devoted to undoing the more misguided policies of their first?

John Prescott: I must say, as someone who was involved with Railtrack, but without going into individual policies, that rail privatisation was quite disastrous; to be fair, that was admitted by Conservative Front Benchers at the time. Railtrack went into administration because it had insufficient resources, not because the Government were not giving it any more—[Interruption.] The Government gave billions more to that organisation, which was constantly asking for more; every year meant £1 billion more in demand. That showed incompetence in handling the matter, which was flawed by privatisation, and we will not take any blame for that. That is the reality. If we change some things, is that so wrong? If we implement a new policy in those areas—on cannabis or on things to do with student financing—we look to see whether it is working, take proper advice and act on the advice. That is what I would call good government.

Alan Beith: In thanking the Deputy Prime Minister for that rather refreshing response, I invite him to pay attention to the privatisation of London Underground and of air traffic services and the denial of free personal care to the elderly as three more policies that it would be a good idea to review and change.

John Prescott: That is so typical of the Tories—I mean the Liberal party. I do not see much difference between Liberals and Tories anyway, so forgive me for that mistake; they are all opposition of one form or another.
	There is no privatisation of London Underground; the assets are to be owned by the people and there will be public accountability. Yes, we are using the resources of private industry to reinvest the assets and rebuild the underground. We think that that is right so, by any stretch of the imagination, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that it is privatisation.
	Of course, a different formula was used for NATS; I think that that decision was right, although I know that Members can tell me to look at those who are lobbying outside. However, we will wait to see whether that produces the investment and modernisation needed by NATS and the underground; we are not ideological about that, but we will make sure that we will more than double the public investment to deal with the massive disinvestment under the 18 years of Tory rule.

Jonathan R Shaw: Last week's announcement by the IRA and the subsequent response from the Ulster Unionist party has reinvigorated the Good Friday agreement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are extreme minorities that have never supported the agreement and have taken every opportunity in the last year or so to undermine progress? Does he further agree that the next step in finding long-lasting peace in Northern Ireland is for all paramilitaries to decommission their weapons, every last one of them?

John Prescott: Indeed, that is a very important objective. The House will recognise that there was a significant, ground-breaking achievement and pay tribute to the leadership not only of the Government but of the Opposition when they were in government. The process started some time ago, and we congratulate all those who were involved in bringing this and the Good Friday agreement about. It shows that politics is working, which is an important lesson to be taken into account, perhaps no more so than in the middle east itself.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the crucial importance of the sustainability of decommissioning, as was required. Of course, we hope that the loyalist paramilitaries will respond by decommissioning arms themselves. Indeed, they were the first to contact the decommissioning commission, and it is vital to the success of the peace process that they continue and complete that process.

Andrew Turner: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the crisis affecting care for the elderly, which has brought about the closure of 48 care homes in my constituency in the past five years, and of the fact that the Isle of Wight council predicts the loss of another 450 beds—15 per cent. of the total—in the next two years because homes cannot afford to implement the Government's Care Standards Act 2000? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he cannot stop bed blocking in hospitals if there are no residential home beds into which elderly people can move?

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. I congratulate him on his victory in the Isle of Wight at the expense of the Liberals, about which I shed few tears. The question of how we deal with care of the elderly is a serious one. It may be possible for some of the people in hospitals to be treated in homes. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has made available £300 million to improve expenditure in this area. The difficulties that we are encountering have come about partly as a result of the privatisation of care homes by the previous Administration. Many have closed because they find it much more profitable to sell at high property prices than to continue to operate as homes.

Chris Ruane: What financial, political and military role does my right hon. Friend see the Islamic nations playing in post-conflict Afghanistan?

John Prescott: We have made it clear that we want consensus on these matters, particularly among the countries that border Afghanistan, which will have an important part to play in a post-war situation. The United Nations has brought the parties together to discuss that. We all want to see agreement and the end of the military conflict. That is why the emphasis is not only on military but on diplomatic and financial aspects, which will all form part of the final settlement.

Richard Spring: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that 11 per cent. of beds in Suffolk hospitals are being blocked by delayed transfers, causing many cancelled operations, trauma for patients and their families and terrible strains on NHS staff? Our hospitals are at maximum capacity or routinely on critical alert. Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the disappointment and concern of my constituents about the current state of the NHS, recall that grotesquely misleading campaign slogan, "24 hours to save the NHS", and apologise for it?

John Prescott: I will certainly not apologise for the fact that the Government have put more resources into the health service than any previous Administration, not only in absolute terms but as a proportion of gross domestic product. Often, the failure to achieve the objectives that we have set is due not to lack of money but to inadequate management. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the beds situation. It is a matter that he has pursued in the past, and under the Tory Administration there was a reduction in beds. For a short period under our Administration, hospitals continued to reduce bed numbers, but for the first time in a long time my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has been able to increase the number of beds in our hospitals. We know what we need to do, we have provided the resources and we will make it a decent health service, after it was run down by the Conservatives.

Joan Ryan: I welcome the consultation document launched today on action to tackle abandoned cars, which pollute and blight our environment and attract crime. Will my right hon. Friend give me a guarantee that as soon as the consultation is closed he will make sure that rapid action is taken to give local authorities the powers to deal effectively with this blight on our local environment?

John Prescott: The whole House will agree with what my hon. Friend says. Many of us are receiving complaints about the many empty cars that are left in the streets. It is, indeed, a considerable problem. The statement made today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions gives local authorities powers to remove vehicles more quickly. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

John Prescott: The measures that have been announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State give local authorities more powers to remove vehicles more quickly. They will be able to remove some vehicles in as little as 24 hours. The House should recognise the problem in places such as Lewisham, which previously had about 600 abandoned cars per year but now has about 6,000. That is a problem of considerable difficulty. The House will recognise that our extra powers and consultation, which include toughening up the DVLA licensing requirements, will deal with these problems. I have made inquiries: of the 6,000 cars in Lewisham, none was a Jaguar.

Michael Ancram: I am sure that the House was highly enlightened by that answer from an expert. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me why he finally decided not to publish an annual report this year?

John Prescott: It was called the general election, and we had a majority of 167.

Michael Ancram: Is not the real reason that there was no annual report the fact that a truthful report would have made extremely uncomfortable reading for the Government? We now know that 50,000 care beds have been closed in the past four years, half of all people wait more than an hour to see a doctor in casualty, class sizes in secondary schools are their largest for a generation, almost half of all teachers leave within three years of joining the profession and police numbers are the lowest for more than a decade. By failing to publicise the report, are not the Government seeking to avoid democratic accountability for all these public service failures?

John Prescott: I recall most of those arguments being put during the election campaign. We put the alternatives and delivered on those promises—and the majority was 167.

Michael Ancram: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember what he told the House on 30 July 1998? He said:
	"All we have done is put our achievements in a proper annual report, record what we have done and be accountable for it. I call that democratic accountability."—[Official Report, 30 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 542.]
	What I want to know is, whatever has happened to democratic accountability since then? Is it not yet another victim of the Government's obsession with news management and spin? Has not the annual report become another political piece of bad news that they have decided without ceremony to bury?

John Prescott: There comes a time when one thinks of the phrase, "Stop digging." We put our record in our manifesto, while the criticism was made by the Tory manifesto. The result was overwhelming. It was the same sort of result that we had in our first election, and I am sure that we are heading for a third one that will go the same way.

Ronnie Campbell: Has my right hon. Friend, like me and many others, read the newspaper stories about Muslims leaving this country to fight for the Taliban? Will he ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to ensure that, if those reports are true and any British citizens are leaving for that purpose, they never set foot in this country again?

John Prescott: My hon. Friend will recall that we took action last year in the Terrorism Act 2000 to deal with some of these problems. When there has been a breach of law in this country—one can think of a number of areas where that may be possible if such activities can be proven to have occurred—action will be taken by the appropriate authorities.

Andrew George: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that, despite the fact that Cornwall is the poorest region in the United Kingdom, the Government, according to this month's BusinessAge magazine, still take £300 million a year more in taxes than they put back in services? Local community regeneration efforts are being frustrated by meddlesome Government quangos and mountains of bureaucracy. Is he aware that Cornwall wants not to get even, but to get on? When will we be given the tools and money to do exactly that?

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman will know that I visited Cornwall and St. Ives, where I spent a holiday recently, and I know full well how people there feel about these matters. He will know also that they are very appreciative of the negotiation of objective 1 funding brought about by this Government. He will know also that they are very grateful for the regional development agency, which the Opposition would abolish if they ever came to power. The agency has played an important part in redeveloping the Cornish economy. The hon. Gentleman may be able to show some differences in public spending figures, but I am not sure whether they are true. Inevitably, the future of Cornwall is a lot more rosy now than it was before, and that is because we have a Labour Government with a few Liberal Democrats elected down there.

George Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the problems caused by heroin in this country are born in Afghanistan? Does he further agree that, once new arrangements are in place in Afghanistan and the current phase in the conflict ends, it will be important that the source of 90 per cent. of the heroin that comes into this country is cut off as much as possible, if not completely?

John Prescott: The whole House will agree with my hon. Friend. Some 90 per cent. of the cannabis in this country comes from that part of the world. The first condition is that we have a Government there who are sympathetic to dealing with the problem. Clearly, the Taliban are not, which is another reason why we should be taking the kind of action that we are.

Angus Robertson: I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister is aware that the key issue of regional air services was debated this morning in Westminster Hall. Does he agree with the majority of people in the highlands and the north of Scotland that air links to Gatwick from Inverness—and to Heathrow, soon—are of key importance? Will he give a commitment that the Government will more than consider a public service obligation order to help secure the vital Inverness to Gatwick air link?

John Prescott: These are essential questions about airports and aviation policy. The hon. Gentleman may know that the Department is considering and developing a White Paper for production within a short period. These matters have been affected by the debate on terminal 5, and anyone who knows about that subject knows that it has made the production of a White Paper difficult. He makes an important point, but he will know that I cannot say whether we will make a public service obligation order. However, I will pass on his comment to the relevant Secretary of State and I will see that he gets a proper reply.

David Lammy: Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain the Government's strategy for ensuring that local authorities are encouraged, equipped or sometimes kicked into dealing with quality of life issues such as dumped rubbish, abandoned cars, dog fouling and dirty public spaces? Young people in my constituency who are growing up amid such neglect are given little incentive to care for their surroundings.

John Prescott: Since coming to the House, my hon. Friend has made it clear that he finds the issues of the quality of life in his constituency very important and has pursued them with some vigour. My earlier announcement was on the removal of cars, on which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) have been campaigning. What we have announced will lead to a vast improvement in the quality of life in those areas where people have been bitterly complaining about these matters. Many things affect the quality of life in local authority areas. One is the numbers of police and wardens, which are being increased, and that should help. Also, the reforms that we have been making to local government will make it much more accountable. The best value principle, which we brought in, is a good way of improving and taking into account quality of life issues in a way that compulsory competitive tendering did not.

Paul Keetch: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that today is the deadline for the Government to apply for £57 million of agrimonetary compensation from the European Union for Britain's hard-pressed arable farmers, which would help farmers throughout the United Kingdom, and not least in my constituency? Given that a recent report suggested that farmers were happier to have the Army than DEFRA officials on their land, would not applying for that compensation go some way towards restoring the countryside's faith in the Government's agriculture policy?

John Prescott: I have no doubt that the farmers did not mind DEFRA officials bringing them the money and support that we give to the rural industry. That did not come with the Army. Both the Army and DEFRA have contributed to dealing with the difficulties in rural areas. The White Paper that we produced on rural communities is also a major contribution to improving the quality of life there.
	To be frank, I am not sure whether this is the last day. [Hon. Members: "It is."] I will accept that. A lot of brilliant Opposition Members know that, but I do not. I will make it my business to get on to the Department and see whether we can get a response today.

David Cairns: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my constituent, Audrey Anderson, who last night won the community nurse of the year award? Will he also reaffirm the Government's commitment to ensuring that our nurses and doctors continue to get the extra investment that they need if they are to make the national health service once again the best in the world?

John Prescott: Yes, I certainly think that everyone in the House would want to congratulate Audrey on the presentation that was made in recognition of the work that she has done. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made the presentation. This serves to remind us of the scale of the increase in nurses and doctors that not only occurred in the first four years of this Administration but continues now. They are all making an important contribution to improving the quality of our health services. Quite frankly, there will not be an improvement in quality unless we get the extra doctors and nurses, because they really make the difference.

Health (Air Travellers)

David Kidney: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for research and development, and dissemination of information and advice, relating to flight-related deep vein thrombosis and other medical considerations affecting air travellers; and for connected purposes.
	The cartoon by Blower in the Evening Standard on 11 January shows a British bomber plane in the second world war under attack from flak from the ground and fighters in the air. The tail gunner is saying to a crew mate:
	"Of course what really scares me is the deep vein thrombosis."
	In that amusing way, the point is made that the risk of deep vein thrombosis is less than some other dangers, and in a very serious way I acknowledge that it is currently overshadowed by the aftermath of the events of 11 September, but as airlines struggle to persuade passengers to fly again, they could well restore confidence all the more quickly if they adopted the measures proposed in the Bill.
	I am grateful to Air Commodore Charles Clarke, retired, for providing me with a splendid copy of the cartoon. I am grateful, too, for the support that I have received for the Bill from hon. Members of all parties, including the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) from the official Opposition, and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) from the Liberal Democrats.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) raised the issue of deep vein thrombosis in a powerful and persuasive speech in an Adjournment debate on 16 January 2001. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) deserves more credit than me for his persistence and skill in raising the issue in many and varied ways, including in his speech in support of his own ten-minute Bill on 12 March 2001, and early-day motion 581 of the Session 2000–01.
	My two hon. Friends both made reference to incidents of deep vein thrombosis that had come to their personal attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North spoke about his own wife's experience; mercifully, medical treatment was effective and she did not die. Regrettably, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan told the House of the death of his constituent, John Anthony Thomas, at just 30 years of age.
	My attention, too, has been attracted to this subject by a constituent's experience. Nick Balmforth nearly died after returning on a flight from Goa to Manchester. Over the weekend he fell ill, and when his GP saw him he was taken to hospital by ambulance. Tests showed multiple blood clots on his lungs, and the diagnosis was pulmonary embolism caused by deep vein thrombosis brought on by the long flight in cramped conditions.
	My constituent was an in-patient for two and a half weeks, and relied on anti-coagulant treatment for the next six months. He has had a frightening time—and costly too, bearing in mind his prolonged absence from work. It is small wonder that he wrote to me:
	"My overriding concern is to help prevent others suffering what I have been through and I am so very mindful of the many who tragically have failed to survive this illness."
	What is the scale of the problem of deep vein thrombosis? In a written question, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the statistics on deaths caused by deep vein thrombosis, including how many were related to air travel. The National Statistician replied that about 6,900 people die each year in England and Wales as a result of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, but that figures were not available for how many of those deaths are related to air travel. The Aviation Health Institute, a medical research charity, estimates that worldwide 30,000 air travellers each year suffer deep vein thrombosis. Of those, dozens die.
	What can be done to ensure that airlines have regard for the well-being of their passengers? Parliament has the benefit of the fifth report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, published last November, which sets out a number of helpful recommendations. It also reminds us that there is not yet a scientifically proven link between air travel and an increased incidence of deep vein thrombosis, and strongly recommends that more research should be done.
	I give credit to the Government for their response to that report, because since then there has been Government-sponsored research. That has led in turn to a willingness to collaborate with the World Health Organisation's recently announced global study of deep vein thrombosis.
	It is important to refer to the differences of opinion between scientists, because my Bill does not go as far as some would wish.
	At this stage I am not willing to put on to airlines the burden of costly adaptations to their fleets of planes. Issues of design such as space around seats, aisle widths and so on should, in my view, await more definitive research findings. Of course airlines should not, however, be able to impede or delay that research. My Bill would require them to co-operate with research, and in particular to keep records of incidents of deep vein thrombosis, which is not done now.
	Other steps can and should be taken already. I say that with confidence, because the best airlines are taking those steps now. In their pre-flight communications with potential passengers—websites, leaflets, and when sending out tickets, for example—airlines can alert the public to health considerations. They can also ensure that their staff are trained in flight-related deep vein thrombosis symptoms, preventive measures and treatment. They can give advice to passengers through staff announcements, their video and the health safety card.
	What advice should the airlines be giving? That question is all the more pressing in view of the news this week about mass legal action against some airlines in the High Court that will make allegations about flight-related deep vein thrombosis. The Civil Aviation Authority has already produced information approved by the relevant Departments, setting out what is meant by deep vein thrombosis and pointing out that some are more at risk than others—for example, those with a history of thrombosis, those taking oral contraceptive pills, those who are pregnant, those who have recently been hospitalised, smokers, the obese, and some patients with congestive heart failure and malignant disease.
	The advice sets out what can be done to reduce risk, such as periodic exercise of the feet and legs, and walking around, where feasible. Elastic stockings may be helpful, and people should drink water, not alcohol. Those who are particularly prone are advised to obtain expert medical advice before their journey.
	My Bill would aim to make those measures compulsory for all airlines, bringing all airlines up to the standard of the best and, assuredly, saving many people from a frightening health incident and some of them from death. I assure the House that the seriousness of the problem merits legislation. More research is needed before some steps should be required by law to be taken, but the Bill represents a proportionate response to the risk in question. It is for those reasons that I ask the House for leave to bring in the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Kidney, Mrs. Janet Dean, Ms Julia Drown, Dr. Ian Gibson, Dr. Evan Harris, Dr. Brian Iddon, Lynne Jones, Mr. John Smith and Bob Spink.

Health (Air Travellers)

Mr. David Kidney accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for research and development, and dissemination of information and advice, relating to flight-related deep vein thrombosis and other medical considerations affecting air travellers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 November, and to be printed [Bill 42].

Personal Statement

Geoffrey Robinson: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement. I wish to start by apologising to the House for a failure to register in 1990 a conditional contract entered into, under which I expected a company I owned to be paid, and to apologise also for my failure to recall the existence of that contract and therefore, inadvertently, misleading the Standards and Privileges Committee when asked about a matter that might be considered to be related in 1998, some eight years later. I apologise to the House for those oversights and I accept absolutely the Committee's recommendations.
	I want the House to know that I sincerely mean that apology, and I apologise for the non-registration of that contract in 1990. However, I did not receive—nor did any company associated with me receive—the payment as alleged. It is because that payment was not paid to me, despite allegations to the contrary, that I have continued to search the company files, archives and records to prove my case. That I plan to continue to do. I am grateful that the Committee did not accept that there was sufficient evidence to find that I received the money.
	On the issue of registration, hon. Members will be aware that in 1990 no Member of Parliament was asked in the rules on registration to register conditional or other contracts between one company and another, far less contracts when payment was not guaranteed but merely anticipated, and no hon. Member recorded any contract in that year or any other year. All of us regarded a statement of our connection with a company as being sufficient. I repeat that I have never attempted to mislead the Committee and have fully—perhaps over fully—co-operated with it. At no point did I represent, lobby for or speak in debates associated with the company involved and I am pleased that the Committee has accepted my position in that respect.
	I thank my constituents and my local party, which have given me their consistent and unstinted support throughout this affair. I also wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make this apology. In accordance with precedent, and with your permission, I will now withdraw from the Chamber.

Standards and Privileges

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That this House—
	(i) approves the First Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 297); and
	(ii) accordingly suspends Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, Member for Coventry North West, from the service of the House for three weeks.—[Mr. McNulty.]
	[The Seventh Report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Session 2000–01, HC 465, on the Complaint against Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, is relevant.]

George Young: I rise to support the motion but, for obvious reasons, I take no pleasure in so doing. I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) for his apology and acceptance of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges.
	This is not the first occasion on which I have taken part in one of these debates, but it is the first time that I have done so as Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee. The present Committee has done no more than write the last sentence of the report produced on the eve of the general election by the Committee chaired by Lord Sheldon. I wish to pay Lord Sheldon a warm tribute: he was a good House of Commons man and a doughty fighter in the campaign to raise the esteem in which the House is held by the public at large. I believe that good progress was made in the course of the previous Parliament in restoring the House's reputation, and I hope that we will make further progress in the same direction during the current Parliament.
	I should also like to express my thanks to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who held the previous Standards and Privileges Committee together with great skill when Lord Sheldon was absent through illness at a very difficult time, and who remains on the Committee as a powerful voice for good sense.
	The Committee's findings are based on the investigation carried out by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Elizabeth Filkin. The report that she has produced on this highly complex and difficult complaint is of a very high standard, for which the whole House should be grateful. Whether we always agree with her conclusions or not, we should recognise the diligence, thoroughness and scrupulous fairness and objectivity she brings to the cases that she has to investigate.
	The Standards and Privileges Committee has dealt with this case, as I am sure that it will deal with every other that comes before it, without any concern for the party affiliation of the Member concerned. We will do our best to be fair both to the House, which has asked us to safeguard its reputation, and to the Members who appear before us, to whom we will give a fair hearing. However, my ambition as Chairman of the Committee is not to have to take part in too many of these debates.
	The main purpose of the system that we have created should not be the investigation of past offences but the prevention of future offences. We should all seek to ensure that our conduct does not give rise to well-founded complaints. We should be scrupulous in our adherence to the rules. Where there is any doubt in our minds, we should seek advice and give a full explanation of the circumstances in good faith, and then act on the advice that we are given. We cannot control what use other people may make of our complaints system, but we in this House should not use it to do down political opponents by making trivial or politically motivated complaints. Therefore, I ask for the support of the entire House in my attempt to work myself out of a job.
	I shall outline the facts of the present case as concisely as I can.
	Between 1988 and 1990, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West was chairman of a company in the Maxwell group called Hollis Industries. According to the company's published accounts, the chairman was paid £200,000. In 1998, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) made a complaint to the then Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Gordon Downey, that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West had failed to register this as a remunerated directorship. The hon. Gentleman told Sir Gordon that his chairmanship of Hollis had been unpaid, that he had never received this money, that he had never expected to receive it, and that the published accounts of the company were in error. Evidence from two firms of accountants supported his assertion that no such payment had been made to him personally. Sir Gordon did not uphold the complaint, and the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges agreed with his conclusion.
	Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend made a fresh complaint to the present Standards Commissioner on the basis of new evidence which had come to light. Her inquiries revealed that in 1990, while the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West was chairman of Hollis, he had negotiated an agreement with the Maxwell interests for his own company, TransTec, to provide management services to a Hollis subsidiary called Lock, in return for a payment to TransTec. The agreement included the provision of the hon. Gentleman's own services as executive chairman of Lock. In October 1990, the hon. Gentleman sent Hollis an invoice from his home address requesting payment of a
	"fee for management service provided to Hollis Industries plc as agreed"
	in the sum of £200,000. Hollis's finance director wrote "Approved" on the invoice, which also carried a further note saying:
	"Paid by PAGB: Recharge H Industries".
	"PAGB" is Pergamon AGB, another Maxwell company; "H Industries" is Hollis.
	The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West subsequently made several further attempts to secure the agreed payment from the Maxwell interests. Early in December, the finance director's secretary attached a note to the invoice, recording a telephone call from the hon Gentleman. It stated:
	"Geoffrey is not registered for VAT. Proposes make cheque payable to him personally."
	At about that time, a payment of £200,000 was made to someone by Pergamon AGB, which then sent Hollis an invoice for the amount. Exactly what happened to that payment is still hotly disputed; the House will have heard the hon. Gentleman's statement. The commissioner established that £200,000 went out of Pergamon's bank account, £200,000 went into the account of the hon. Gentleman's company, TransTec, and the debt owed to TransTec by another of the hon. Gentleman's companies was reduced by £200,000.
	The commissioner concluded that the hon. Gentleman or his beneficial interests had received the payment. The hon. Gentleman has consistently and strenuously denied that he received the money. The Committee gave him three months to see whether he could find the Pergamon cheque, which would tell us who actually got the money, but unfortunately the cheque has not been found. Although this is a matter of the greatest importance to the hon. Gentleman, it was less important to the previous Committee. The present Committee takes no view on this one way or the other. Indeed, our report says:
	"We do not assume that payment was made to, or benefited, Mr. Robinson or one of his companies."
	That does not mean, of course, that the Committee cleared him of receiving the payment. In the Committee's view, the payment was agreed, and the submission of the invoice indicated that the payment was expected. The interest was registrable whether the payment was received or not, and the hon. Gentleman failed to register it.
	Much more serious than the failure to register the interest was the hon. Gentleman's failure to volunteer information to the 1998 inquiry. He was asked at that time whether he had received or had expected to receive any benefit in respect of his chairmanship of Hollis. He said no, but the reality is that Hollis and its subsidiary company, Lock, were the same thing, and TransTec and the hon. Gentleman were the same thing. However, the hon. Gentleman supplied no information to Sir Gordon Downey about the negotiations involving TransTec and Lock and no information about his efforts to secure the payment which had been agreed. He made available none of the documents, least of all the invoice he submitted. He said that he had forgotten about the arrangement when he was questioned about Hollis in 1998. If the Standards and Privileges Committee had been given the full story at that time, it might well have come to a very different conclusion.
	We consider that our predecessors and the former commissioner were misled as a result of what the hon. Gentleman failed to tell them in 1998. Misleading the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges is a very serious matter. It is often far more serious than the offence on which the Committee is being misled.
	The House is a forgiving place if a Member owns up and openly admits that he has made a mistake. I made that point in the last debate of this kind on 1 March last year. A Member who is not frank and open with the commissioner, the Committee and the House must expect a more serious penalty as a result.

Tam Dalyell: Does anybody on this Committee have any inkling of what it was like to deal with the byzantine affairs of the late Bob Maxwell? Just trying to deal with Bob Maxwell leads to difficulties.

George Young: The previous Committee examined this matter at length and took all the circumstances into account, including the byzantine nature of the Maxwell empire.
	The House will be aware that in the last Parliament the Committee upheld complaints that the hon. Gentleman had failed to register interests in July 1998, November 1998 and March 1999. In November 1998, the hon. Gentleman was required to apologise to the House by means of a personal statement.
	The period of suspension that the Committee has recommended reflects, on the one hand, the seriousness of the offence and, on the other, the fact that the hon. Gentleman and his solicitor co-operated fully with the commissioner and the Committee in allowing the matter to be resolved without delay. I ask the House to approve the Committee's recommendation.

Paul Tyler: I am delighted that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) is now Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. I very much hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will support his view that it is important to reduce the number of occasions when such matters come before the House.
	I have read both the original and supplementary reports. Within the terms of reference of our inquiry and investigative system, they are undoubtedly persuasive, and I hope that the House will endorse them. However, it is fair to say that the anxiety about this case does not simply relate to the individual and his circumstances.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire rightly referred to the way in which the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges approaches its business. There are concerns in all parts of the House about the operation of our investigative system and, indeed, the practice of the Select Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
	I draw the attention of the House and, in particular, that of the right hon. Gentleman, to the report produced by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege on which I think the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who has just left the Chamber, and certainly the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) served with me during the previous Parliament. In that document, we considered carefully a number of issues that related to the discipline of Members and the occasions when non-Members confront or affront the way in which the House operates. Those are matters of considerable importance, and not only in the context of privilege.
	Now that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire has taken command of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, I ask him to look at that report, in particular the section—chapter 6—that deals with disciplinary and penal powers and the part that deals with natural justice, whether that relates to our fellow citizens or to hon. Members. The section on procedural fairness contains matters of concern that have not been dealt with by the Select Committee or any other House authorities as far as I am aware. It is certainly raised in the annexe to the present report by the hon. Gentleman whose conduct is under examination. The procedures that have been followed are at least open to some question. I hope that referring to the work of the Joint Committee will mean that those issues of fairness can be dealt with properly.
	I should have mentioned that the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), who was then Leader of the House, was also involved in the exercise. I think that she shares the experience of 18 months of studying these issues with great care and with the assistance of a number of legal authorities in the other place and much other legal expertise surrounding us.
	I do not object to the conclusion or the recommendation of the present report, but it would be remiss of the House if we did not take this opportunity to record that there is some anxiety in the House and outside it about the way we discipline ourselves in these matters. I share the aspiration of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, the Chairman of the Committee, that progress should be made in restoring the reputation of the House. In that respect, I too share his ambition that we should at least reduce if not remove the need to come back to the House with reports of this sort.

Alan Williams: I had not intended to speak, but I have been scribbling as I have been listening. I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), for his overgenerous remarks to me, which are much appreciated.
	I must point out that throughout the previous Parliament every report that the Select Committee produced was unanimous. That is important as it demonstrates the way in which the House is determined to resolve any internal problems, in spite of what the press said about the Labour majority—under the rules of the House every Committee must reflect the numbers on the Floor of the House.
	The present shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), was one member of the Select Committee, as was Martin Bell, our former colleague. The present Chairman, when he was shadow Leader of the House, said that if the Conservative Whips could not keep his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst under control, he found it hard to imagine how the Committee could do so. It was a great achievement to get through those four years without a single non-consensual report. I hope that that trend will continue under the present Chairman.
	What triggered my speech was the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the Father of the House. He referred to the byzantine Maxwell empire. That is an irrelevance. However byzantine the empire was, the invoice did not come from Maxwell: it was to Maxwell, and with it was a declaration of expectation. Where there is expectation, there is the danger of a conflict of interest. If there is an expectation of a benefit, it must be declared; that is clearly stated in the rules. As the Chairman of the Select Committee rightly said, the situation was exacerbated by the fact that, as far back as 1998, the hon. Member for Coventry, North–West (Mr. Robinson), sadly, denied to Sir Gordon Downey that there was any expectation.
	May I put a point to the Leader of the House? He knows well that during the last Parliament the Committee on Standards and Privileges tried to address some of the nonsense in the code of conduct. The code had been drawn up in a hurry; it was too detailed and extremely difficult for Members to understand. It is certainly difficult for Members to remember all the facets of the code, so we urgently need a debate so that Members have a clear idea early in this Parliament what is expected of them. May we have a debate on the report proposing changes to the current system issued by the former Committee?
	Like the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), I also draw attention to the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, chaired so well by Lord Nicholls and of which I and many colleagues were members. Although Ministers have accepted that report, it has never been debated; apart from its initial reception, it has not been significantly addressed. The report contains important issues that need to be addressed in the context of the new human rights entitlement for everyone, including Members of Parliament.

David Heathcoat-Amory: These debates on disciplinary matters and the misdemeanours of hon. Members are somewhat doleful occasions—they are certainly not a time for celebration or glee. I bear no animosity towards the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), although I was the complainant who launched not only this inquiry but several previous ones. This is the fourth time that the hon. Gentleman has been reprimanded by the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
	My aim throughout has been to try to uphold and enforce the rules of the House—rules that the Labour party, especially in opposition, was anxious to strengthen and make stricter. During the past four years, the Labour Government have themselves become entangled in a number of disciplinary matters. I agree with the observations of right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about possible reforms and improvements to the disciplinary process. The rules on registration have become unnecessarily and even unworkably tight in several respects; they invite many trivial, vexatious and technical complaints that do little to raise the status or reputation of the House. That is perhaps a matter for debate on another occasion.
	The matters covered in the Select Committee's report are certainly not technical or trivial; they are serious allegations and I am sure that the House was pleased to accept the apology of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West. Personally, I should also like an apology from the Labour and Government media manipulation units, which constantly rubbished my early efforts to get to the bottom of this complex matter, and in particular to expose the relationship between the late Robert Maxwell and the Labour party.
	I am glad to say that the first report of the Standards and Privileges Committee of 2001–02, particularly when read in conjunction with the seventh report of the previous Session, published on 3 May, sheds considerable light on one aspect of that very complex web of undeclared payments between the Robert Maxwell empire and new Labour. To that extent, I feel vindicated.
	As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the report is based on an investigation by Mrs. Filkin, the present Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. It is a comprehensive and a fair report. The standard of proof required, at least by the Committee, goes some way beyond what has been required in the past. If I compare the way in which Neil Hamilton was treated by Sir Gordon Downey, who was really satisfied with a balance of probabilities rule of evidence, with the standards required by the present Committee, I find that the rules of evidence have been tightened, and rightly so.
	In addition, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West was given an additional three months to try to find an innocent explanation for the £200,000 payment. I actually believe that that had more to do with the impending election, and the Government's desire to get the matter pushed beyond the election date, than anything else. That was a mistake; if we had dealt with the matter in the summer, we could now be entering a new Parliament with a clean slate. As it is, this whole matter of what the public media call sleaze is already contaminating this Parliament, and that will do nothing for our reputation in the House—although that has never been much of a concern to the Government.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire outlined, this is the second investigation into the subject. The first was conducted by Sir Gordon Downey, the previous commissioner, in 1998. We can now see that that earlier investigation was somewhat superficial, and certainly incomplete. As regards the disputed £300,000 payment from the Maxwell companies to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West, that was in the audited accounts of the company concerned, and Sir Gordon found some additional evidence by way of inter-company invoices for the same amount.
	However, at that time the hon. Gentleman was given the benefit of the doubt by the commissioner and by the Standards and Privileges Committee because no invoice was discovered. There was no piece of paper on which the hon. Gentleman had sought or demanded the £300,000, nor were the cash books recording the payment found. That was because the companies concerned—the Maxwell companies—had collapsed and were in administration and the books of records were held by Arthur Andersen, the administrators. The Committee at that time, for reasons that I do not fully understand, decided not to investigate those records, and when I made a request to do the work I was actually barred from looking at those records, also for reasons that I do not fully understand.
	The crucial fact, which really should worry the House, is that those documents and that invoice were found the following year in an investigation by the Department of Trade and Industry, conducting its own inquiry. The real scandal of this whole episode is that that information has been covered up; I use that phrase accurately and in the knowledge of what I am alleging.
	At the time, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. That DTI inquiry, which was started early in 1999, was undertaken in response to four letters that I had written the year before about the business affairs of that part of the Robert Maxwell empire. I pointed out glaring breaches of company law, pension fund irregularities, undeclared payments to directors and so on.
	I specifically and in writing asked the DTI to undertake an inquiry under section 432 of the Companies Acts and to do so by means of an external, independent inquiry, with full publication of the results, precisely because there would otherwise be a clear conflict of interest—one Department would investigate the affairs of a serving Labour Minister. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West was then the Paymaster General at the Treasury and therefore intimately involved in taxation and expenditure matters, as I was when I was Paymaster General some time before.
	To avoid any suspicion that the Labour party was investigating its own affairs and might be tempted to cover up the matter, I asked for an investigation under a specific section of the Companies Acts, but the Secretary of State replied saying, among other things, that he
	"would wish to be as open as possible on these matters."
	There is a certain irony in those words in the light of what happened afterwards, but I took that phrase to mean that he acceded to my request. I was wrong, as I shall shortly describe, but the important thing is that that inquiry found everything—in other words, it found all the evidence and documents that the Committee had not found.
	The invoice was discovered by the investigators in the DTI, as well as the cashbook entries and so on, but no action was taken. Instead, on the day that the House rose for the Christmas recess at the end of 1999, the Secretary of State answered a planted parliamentary question, asked by a Labour Member, saying that no action would be taken. I was not even given the courtesy of being sent a copy of that reply; I discovered it during the Christmas recess. In other words, the DTI knew that that was the missing evidence, and it sat on it. Of course, the evidence was very embarrassing because it showed the Maxwell links to the Labour party and the misdemeanours of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West, who had just resigned as a Minister.

Nigel Beard: The right hon. Gentleman has attempted to associate Robert Maxwell with new Labour or, recently, the Labour party, three times during his speech. Has he any evidence of Robert Maxwell's link in financial terms with new Labour or the Labour party, as opposed to Robert Maxwell's link to individual people in a private capacity?

David Heathcoat-Amory: I am using the term "Labour party" in a rather general sense. Certainly, many serving Labour Ministers, including the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, received money for their private offices from the hon. Gentleman, whose wealth derives from the links and business relationships that are the subject of the report. I suggest that the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) reads the two reports and all the appendices, and then he would discover what I am talking about.
	The point that I am making is that the information in full is contained in that DTI inquiry report, which today sits in a safe at the DTI. That inquiry was launched in response to the points that I made in 1998. The information exists—and if there is an innocent explanation for the relationship and the flow of payments, let us hear it. Let the Government publish the inquiry or, at least, let us know what conclusion it reached.

Stuart Bell: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House, but I am not aware of any evidence that the leader of the Labour party or the then shadow Chancellor ever received money from Robert Maxwell. [Hon. Members: "He did not say that."] Well, I understood him to say that. However, does he accept that when a similar allegation was made in Private Eye about Neil Kinnock, a former leader of the Opposition, it was not only denied but Maxwell received damages?

David Heathcoat-Amory: It is precisely to get to the bottom of the matter that I want the Government to publish the information that they have. We know that they carried out an inquiry, because that was confirmed to me, eventually. It is a modest request from me that the information be published.

Julie Kirkbride: It would be of benefit to the House if Members remembered that the Prime Minister's press secretary, Mr. Alastair Campbell, was employed as political editor of The Mirror directly by Robert Maxwell and was clearly a very close associate of him. A member of the present Cabinet was also employed directly by Robert Maxwell and, if I remember rightly, a Member in the other place—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We drifting away from the report. We should confine our remarks to it.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The late Robert Maxwell was the great Labour tycoon. That much is known. We need information to get to the bottom of the relationship.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As my right hon. Friend knows, I was involved in the investigation with him and I made a complaint to the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I also made a complaint to the chairman of the Inland Revenue, asking him to investigate where the payment of £200,000 had gone. Does my right hon. Friend know whether the Committee on Standards and Privileges asked the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) to produce his tax return, which would show whether he had returned the £200,000 payment? If the hon. Gentleman did not receive the payment, would my right hon. Friend expect the Inland Revenue to investigate where it had gone?

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Issues of taxation are rather wider than the responsibilities of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, but I will touch on tax law before I conclude.
	The only reason that the second inquiry took place and the cover-up failed was that an investigative journalist, Mr. Tom Bower, obtained the invoice in question. I do not know from whom he obtained it or how he obtained it, but he did and the invoice was published in a national newspaper. The newspaper and Mr. Bower were both threatened with a libel action by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, although that was quite quickly dropped. It was clearly just bluff and bluster to try to silence the press, but the Secretary of State's libel action was undertaken at public expense. When I recently asked how much taxpayers had paid to help the Secretary of State to launch his abortive libel action, I was told that that information was not available. Perhaps another cover-up is in the making there.
	After further letters from me, the disclosure of the invoice enabled Mrs. Filkin to reopen her inquiry. The invoice showed beyond any question that, even if one accepts that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West did not receive the money into his bank account, he certainly requested or solicited it. I have a copy of the invoice with me. It appears on his writing paper, is for management services worth £200,000 and is marked "paid". Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire alluded to that in his speech. There is solid evidence that some rules of the House have been broken.

Julian Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend think it worth remarking on the fact that when the journalist, Tom Bower, published the story that he had discovered the invoice and rang up the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), who had prepared it, to tell him that, the response was not one of surprise? Instead—if I remember the words correctly that have been repeatedly quoted in the press—he said something along the lines of, "You're not supposed to have that."

David Heathcoat-Amory: That is how it is recorded in the book about this event. I am reluctant to go beyond what I have witnessed or found in documents. That must remain someone else's version of events, but it does fit into a pattern.
	The crucial factor was the discovery and publication of the additional facts, because that allowed the inquiry to be reopened. It became clear that the 1998 inquiry, which had effectively exonerated the hon. Gentleman, was incomplete. The reports by the Committee on Standards and Privileges constantly refer to the Department of Trade and Industry report. They confirm my suspicions about the Maxwell group and show that I was not simply trawling through a host of unsubstantiated allegations about Mr. Maxwell.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) mentioned taxation. No one disputes that the £300,000 payment was made, but the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West said that it was not paid into his bank account. However, if the payment was made for management services without tax or national insurance contributions being deducted, that contravened section 311 of the Companies Acts. If the payment was designed to go into a personal service company, value added tax should have been included, and it was not. The DTI did nothing about that. The Government say that they are against tax evasion. Why then, when one of their Departments had evidence that tax was being evaded, did they not pass the matter on to the tax authorities as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold?
	Stock exchange regulations are another example. It is serious to breach them, but there is evidence in the voluminous appendices to the 3 May report that the prospectus issued to the shareholders of another Maxwell company, Central and Sheerwood plc, was misleading in a number of material respects.
	I pointed that out in a letter to the DTI and asked what action it proposed to take, but it has done nothing. The Government are considering making it criminal for directors to be involved in anti-competitive behaviour, yet when they have evidence in their own report that a shareholders circular was misleading, they sit on it and do nothing. Indeed, a few days before Christmas they used a planted question to issue the statement that they did not propose to take further action. That is why I have no hesitation in calling this a scandal and a cover-up. They do not deny that the report contains that information. I have corresponded with the previous and present Secretaries of State and there has been no denial that the report covered that subject and that the information exists.

Dennis Skinner: To get the record straight, and as the right hon. Gentleman is hanging out this so-called dirty washing, can he clarify his entry in the register? Some of his hon. Friends who are engaged in moonlighting jobs and directorships include the amounts that they receive. As he is hounding almost everyone in the Labour party, how much has he received? Why has he not put that in the register?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Dennis Skinner: How much—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I am speaking. That intervention is wholly outside the scope of the report that we are debating. To the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), I have to say that, as Mr. Speaker ruled earlier, we are in danger of straying too far into the general from the particular matter that is before the House.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I would love to respond to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but you have a solemn and strict expression on your face, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall return to the matter being debated.
	The latest ploy by the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is to say that the whole affair is none of his responsibility—claiming that despite the fact that the Department of which he was Secretary of State was involved, everything was done by civil servants. Why, then, did he answer my letters on the subject? Why did he correspond with me? Why did he answer written parliamentary questions on the subject? It was his Department and he is constitutionally accountable to the House for what went on in his Department. Moreover, it was he—or, to be charitable, someone who reported to him—who decided to instigate an in-house inquiry, rather than the independent external one that I had requested precisely to avoid allegations of cover-up or conflict of interest.
	Those are the clear facts. The House has got the report despite the Government's best efforts to suppress the information. To this day, all that information remains secret in the Department of Trade and Industry, which could quite easily launch a new investigation under another section of the Companies Act, with publication guaranteed if it so wished, to get to the bottom of the many issues connected with company law, taxation, pension funds and stock exchange regulations that I have highlighted and to which the reports before the House allude.
	We have not got to the bottom of the links between the Maxwell empire and new Labour. That is why we need a full inquiry, a proper inquiry, an independent inquiry, with the results published. If we do not get that, the House will be in the unhappy position of being able to discipline individual Members of Parliament, but not the Government. That has to change.

Tom Levitt: I rise as a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), I am a reluctant contributor to the debate, but, given the work that the Committee has been carrying out for the past few months, some of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat- Amory) need to be either put into context or contradicted.
	The Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), expressed the hope that in future politically motivated and trivial complaints would not be brought to the Committee. I do not suggest that that is true of the complaint that is the subject of our debate, but I find it a bit rich, as well as in poor taste, that the complainant should gloat about the outcome of a report for half an hour. Furthermore, in his speech today the right hon. Member for Wells went far beyond not only the Committee's report, but his original complaint.
	Let me give an example. The right hon. Gentleman criticised the Committee for having given the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) a further three months to produce evidence about the cheque and whether he had received it. As has already been pointed out by two hon. Members, whether the hon. Gentleman received the cheque was not an issue for the Committee: the issuing of an invoice and the expectation of being paid was sufficient to warrant a declaration. Although the question of whether he had received the cheque was of great interest to the hon. Gentleman, the Committee did not consider it an issue and it agreed unanimously—with the support of the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Independent members of the Committee—to allow the extra time for the hon. Gentleman to try to determine to his own satisfaction what had happened to that cheque.
	The right hon. Member for Wells went on to draw parallels with the Hamilton case. Of course, in that case a large number of allegations were dismissed. Once again, the conclusion that the Committee reached four years ago—I was a Committee member then—did not depend on the receipt of the money. The expectation of receiving it was sufficient to merit a declaration.
	My next point is brief and I make it for the sake of accuracy. Several times, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a £300,000 cheque—[Interruption.] He has acknowledged his mistake; a £200,000 cheque was under discussion. However, that repeated exaggeration did not help his case.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked about the Inland Revenue. The Committee did not raise the matter with the Inland Revenue to try to establish whether the cheque had been cashed and dealt with in the usual way. Again, that was for exactly the same reason; what happened to the cheque did not matter to us. There was an issue about the invoice and expectation of receipt, so a declaration was needed. Where the cheque ended up was not the most important thing for the Committee to investigate.
	I am offended by the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Wells that somehow there was a cover-up to which the Committee was party. That is certainly not—

David Heathcoat-Amory: I have never alleged that the Committee is in any way implicated in a cover-up; it is the Government who are in the dock. I was making the point that the Committee was denied information by the Government—specifically the DTI—which it could have used to come to a much earlier conclusion.

Tom Levitt: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his clarification. The commissioner looked into his allegation, followed by the Committee. We felt that we had all the information that we needed to make a judgment on the allegation which, to use a word employed earlier, did not go into the byzantine connections that may, or may not, have existed between the Maxwell empire and politicians, whether individually or in general. That was not the allegation that the right hon. Gentleman submitted to the Committee; we did not carry out an investigation into it, and it was not part of our conclusion. Whatever the issues around Maxwell's pro quo for the quid, they were certainly not on our agenda for discussion.
	I shall take my Committee hat off for a moment. Towards the end of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman talked about the Government's best efforts to suppress the issues. That has not been tested; it remains his allegation. The Committee had no brief to look into the matter, whether it involved arrangements between individuals or influence that anyone may have tried to exert on a political party. Indeed, throughout our investigations, we found no evidence of any suggestion of political manipulation alongside any financial transaction whatsoever.
	The right hon. Gentleman has used our debate to raise an issue that goes well beyond the scope of the Committee's report which, I hope, will be accepted for what it is. I hope that people will look at the allegations that we received and the investigation that we carried out. Under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, who has already established himself and taken to his new role like a duck to water, I hope that we will be able to continue our deliberations in future. I trust that we will be able look at issues objectively when there are reasonable grounds for investigation, and that our offices and those of the commissioner will not be used for pursuing party political issues.

Andrew MacKay: That was a most unfortunate contribution from the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), which well illustrates why a member of the Government payroll should not be sitting on the Standards and Privileges Committee. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware that the hon. Gentleman is a Parliamentary Private Secretary. That was clear from the tone of his speech. It is most unfortunate that a member of the payroll, clearly speaking for the Government as a PPS, should serve on that Committee.
	The House owes a great debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat- Amory). If it were not for him, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) would not have been in the House today, accepting the conclusions of the report and agreeing that he should be suspended for three weeks. That should be clearly recognised.

Alan Williams: In fairness, the right hon. Gentleman does my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) a grave injustice by saying that he is on the payroll. He is a Parliamentary Private Secretary. PPSs are not paid. He is an ordinary Back Bencher, like any other Back Bencher—[Interruption.] That is a matter of importance when we are discussing interests and the Standards and Privileges Committee. My hon. Friend is not on the payroll.

Andrew MacKay: The right hon. Gentleman was first elected to the House in 1964. That is 27 years ago. He is a distinguished and experienced Member of the House, and he knows that anyone who was a PPS in any of those years was said to be on the payroll when it came to votes and speaking in the House. The right hon. Gentleman knows that full well. He is trying to muddy the water, which is a pity. I should have thought more of him. [Interruption.]
	The Leader of the House says that I am muddying the water. I will tell him who was muddying the water a moment ago. He was colluding with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to try to muddy the water by questioning the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells—[Interruption.] The Leader of the House knows full well why there was no answer. The question was out of order, as the Deputy Speaker ruled, and my right hon. Friend would not have been able to give the answer. It is rather sad that the Leader of the House, who is supposed to defend the interests of the House, seems to be colluding in a partisan way in an extremely serious case.
	Make no mistake, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is one of the most serious cases of its type that the House has had to debate. We all know that the late Robert Maxwell was one of the biggest crooks and fraudsters who ever entered the House as a Member of Parliament. We also know that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West has a bit of form. This is the fourth time that he has been reported to the Committee, and the fourth time that he has been reprimanded. On this occasion, the recommendation is that he be suspended for three weeks, so this is no trivial matter.
	Whereas I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Bolsover is treating the matter frivolously and checking my entry in the Register of Members' Interests—he will find nothing of significance—I should have thought that the Leader of the House would know better and would remember what his position is.

Dennis Skinner: All that happened between me and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was that I asked him for the register, as I do not have one here. I got the register from the Front Bench, read it and found out that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) had entered his remunerated directorships, but had not put the money in. I thought that as we had agreed that the money should be entered in bands, and as the right hon. Gentleman was engaged in the business of hounding, he himself should be lily-white. It turned out that he was not. I wanted to know how much money he had made as a Back Bencher moonlighting. I ask the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), too, how much he has made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to have got in through the back door, when I thought that I had bolted the front door. However, he had some encouragement from the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). This is a serious occasion for the House, and it is better for us to stick tightly to the report.

Andrew MacKay: I am happy to stick to the report, Mr. Deputy Speaker and I shall, naturally, abide by what you say.
	Let us consider the key point in the report: did the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West receive a cheque or not? I think that it is beyond any reasonable doubt that he did so. We have seen the invoice on his own private notepaper. We have seen clearly that it was receipted and paid. In those circumstances, it is a little surprising that the Committee did not follow Elizabeth Filkin's recommendations. If it had done so, we would be talking about a suspension not of three weeks, but a lot longer.
	You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, unfortunately and regrettably, we have had debates similar to this one in recent years. Previously, hon. Members who have erred have rightly been punished, often by suspension. However, the mere three weeks' suspension in this case is in no way proportionate to the hon. Gentleman's misdemeanour, which has been confirmed by Elizabeth Filkin, Tom Bower and, most important, Mr. Aldous, the completely independent inspector whom the then Department of Trade and Industry asked to look into the affairs of Hollis Industries, the then Paymaster General and the companies of the late Robert Maxwell.
	There are serious lessons to be learned. In future, the Committee must take a tougher stance when it is dealing with serious offences. I entirely endorse what has been said by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) about the need to throw out frivolous cases. I also support what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said about the need for the guidelines to be reviewed. We are, however, considering an immensely serious case. My constituents and most people outside the House will think that our procedures are something of a closed shop and that we have joined together, patted the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West on the head, said "Dear, dear, you made a modest, rather rambling apology; at least it was a little longer than the statement that you made at the Dispatch Box last time" and then suspended him for a mere three weeks. That approach brings the House into disrepute and we will live to regret this day.
	What has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire about the report and the role of the Department of Trade and Industry and its then Secretary of State needs to be explained with greater clarity. I should like the Leader of the House to pay a little attention to these remarks, as what happens on the Floor of the House is his responsibility. We need a statement and then a debate. It is intolerable that the independent inspector's report has not been published. It raises questions about the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that can be properly resolved, in his interests, only when we see the report and have confirmation from officials about why they did not let him know about its seriousness in respect of the tax allegations and related matters. I accepted his assurance that he knew absolutely nothing about the detail of the report, even up to the time of the planted written question that appeared when the House adjourned for the Christmas recess in 1999.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the report should be made public, not least because, until the matter of the £200,000 payment is cleared up, the pensioners and minority shareholders in the companies that were involved—A. M. Lock Ltd. and Hollis Industries plc—cannot be certain of their true position?

Andrew MacKay: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I commend him for the role that he has played in bringing some of this information to light.
	I am very cross because, like my hon. Friend, I can remember entering my constituency office and finding Maxwell pensioners in tears. Many had never met or worked for the crook Maxwell, but their companies had been taken over by him after they retired, and they suddenly found that they had no pension to live on. That was a disgraceful state of affairs. That is the sort of man we are talking about; never forget that he was the most evil crook and it is a great pity that he was ever elected to this House for one Parliament.
	I ask my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee and the Committee members to reflect further on whether they genuinely think that this sentence is long enough. The Committee should reflect on what the hon. Member for North Cornwall said about a debate on and a review of the guidelines, because I entirely agree. In the interests of his Cabinet colleague, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that there is a proper debate on the DTI report and that that report is published so that it clears the air.

Tom Levitt: To put some of the right hon. Gentleman's earlier comments into context, will he acknowledge that the sentence is the second heaviest that the Committee has recommended since it was set up in 1997?

Andrew MacKay: I would respond by saying that we have seen nothing like this before. In my 20 years of experience, this is the most serious case that I have seen.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew MacKay: No, I will not give way. I shall conclude now, as others want to speak.
	I do not believe for one moment that we have seen the end of the matter. The fact that the sentence is only the second most serious that the Committee has recommended confirms to me that it is totally inadequate.

John Redwood: I rise to support the findings of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and the able speech of its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). We have also heard a fulsome apology from the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) for the two findings of the Committee against him. That would normally be an end of the matter. This House has a certain dignity in handling such problems. Where an hon. Member has been found wanting, accepts the findings of the House and apologises, we move on and trust that all of us have learned and are wiser as a result.
	Today we are faced with a rather bigger conundrum, which is deeply unsatisfactory for the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West and for the rest of the House. We heard the hon. Gentleman state categorically, as he did when he appeared before the Committee on several occasions, that he did not receive the payment. We read in the Committee report that it cannot rule out the fact that he might have received the payment, but that it did not have the overwhelming weight of evidence that it would have liked to be able to determine the matter one way or the other.
	That means, unfortunately, that this debate today, and whatever may ensue, does not draw a line under all of the issues that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have been voicing. For the sake of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West and the rest of us, the Government owe us a fuller statement on all the circumstances surrounding the Hollis company and the Maxwell group of companies with which it had a working relationship so that we can get to the bottom of the issue.
	It is possible that the answer is already known to the Department of Trade and Industry. It would be normal, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said with considerable force and eloquence, for the DTI to sanction a full inquiry under section 432 of the Companies Acts. I remember when I was a Minister responsible for such matters in the DTI, when I had to make difficult judgments, and advise the Secretary of State accordingly, as to whether we should go for a full public inquiry into a set of problems or one of the private inquiries available under another section of the legislation. The overwhelming case against section 432 was always and only that it could damage a live trading company which might not be guilty of the charges that were being investigated, but could suffer severe commercial damage if it were widely known publicly that it was being investigated.
	Clearly that does not apply in this case. We are talking about investigating companies and events from some time ago and things have moved on, so that these companies' reputations or trading could not be damaged further by knowledge of a full public inquiry.
	I urge Ministers, for the sake of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West and of the rest of us, to publish what they know already, especially if it answers the $100,000 or £200,000 question at the heart of this debate, or to order a full public inquiry, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells has urged more than once, with the express intention of getting to the bottom of this issue and the many others that remain on the table in relation to the pensioners, the other trading companies in the Maxwell group and the various rights and wrongs.
	Many people think that wrongs were committed, but there are no wrongdoers. That is very unsatisfactory. A proper Government inquiry could establish with acceptable certainty whether wrongs were done, and then go on to say who was responsible, so that other action could be taken if necessary. It is certainly important for the hon. Member at the heart of this debate that the DTI should assist us in answering the £200,000 question: whether the money was receipted into an account operated by him or one of his companies.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells said, the case would be much more serious were it to be established that the hon. Gentleman had misled the House over a payment, in addition to the two charges that he has accepted today. I am prepared to accept his word, in the spirit adopted by the Committee, but I understand that the Committee was unclear about the exact nature of the payment and where it went. We need to clear that up to lift a shadow from someone or some company and attribute the blame where it belongs.
	It would not be wise, following this problem, for the Government to ask Elizabeth Filkin to step aside and to find someone else to take on her role. She has established a reputation in—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is outside the scope of the debate.

John Redwood: I stand suitably chastened, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The House needs to establish its reputation for probity by the way in which it handles such issues, which it must do with continuity, fairness and firmness. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells was right to warn us of the danger of too much trivia, with too many unimportant cases cluttering up the system and giving the impression that many Members are not as honourable as they should be, which is untrue. With a serious case such as this, we need the help of the DTI to crack it, so that the public can see that we really have got to the bottom of the issue.
	Sleaze was a weapon fashioned by Labour in opposition. It is in danger of becoming a boomerang, causing them endless problems as allegations surround Ministers and former Ministers. I urge the Government to clear up those allegations through a full inquiry into the former Maxwell operations, because many of them stem from that awful web of connections between the late Robert Maxwell, his business empire and Ministers past and present.

Stuart Bell: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who made a very seductive and persuasive argument for further inquiries into the Maxwell empire and how it might be linked to the Government or to Ministers. While he did not want to speak too dishonourably of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), he said that the question of the cheque and the proceeds had not been cleared up.
	To my recollection, the Department of Trade and Industry spent 10 years investigating the Maxwell empire, and published a report. I cannot see how more reports could possibly be helpful. I have read Tom Bower's books. I declare an interest, because Mr. Maxwell went to his grave owing me £500. I will not detain the House on how that came about. I may have been luckier than many.
	From personal knowledge of Maxwell, I know that if ever someone was capable of writing a cheque on the Friday and letting it bounce on the Monday, it was he. He reputedly funded the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh, but the cheques were never paid. He also did a deal in the City of London on the Friday, when the law firm—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should address himself to the report, not the history.

Stuart Bell: I was aware of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I took my eye off you for a minute, and then realised that I was wandering somewhat.
	To go back to the point that is relevant to the debate, the fact that a cheque was written out is no proof that it was ever endorsed or cashed. I ask the House to take my hon. Friend's apology in good faith, and to accept in good faith that he did not receive the money. As for the report before the House, I accept that such debates are important for the House and its reputation, but I would not advise the Government to order more investigation by the Department of Trade and Industry.

John Redwood: I was drawing attention to the fact that the Committee could not wholeheartedly resolve the issue; that is why it needs clearing up. If things are as the hon. Gentleman suggests, we have to explain why the accounts seem to imply otherwise—and we need to know what other items in those accounts are misleading.

Stuart Bell: Again, questions about the accounts go wider, because we are talking about the activities of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West, and the particular question before the Committee on Standards and Privileges. How the auditors did their work is something different. All that I am telling the House is that Mr. Maxwell had a reputation for issuing cheques on a Friday that bounced on a Monday. Therefore the House should accept my hon. Friend's apology and statement in good faith, accept the Select Committee's report, and leave the matter where it is.

Gerald Howarth: I should declare an interest at the outset, in that I was at one time Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. I salute him for the work that he has done, and I am delighted that he has taken over that role. I was not paid by him—or by anybody else, sadly—when I was his PPS, but I must tell the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) that a very strong convention applied when we were in government, that a PPS was part of the payroll, even if not actually on it, and did not participate in House of Commons matters except formally. I am surprised to see that the hon. Gentleman is still serving on the Committee.
	I shall now take up a point first made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire and then taken up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). We run a risk of allowing trivial cases, however defined, to gain currency outside the House and give the impression that this House is made up of a great number of people who are venal and do not take their parliamentary responsibilities seriously.
	Rightly or wrongly, there has emerged the idea—and in some people's view the debate may reflect it—that we are engaged in party political point-scoring over reports from the Committee on Standards and Privileges. I have said to Labour Members, some of whom hold high office in this Government and some of whom are no longer in the House, that in my view the Committee has in the past been partisan in favour of the Labour party, and that if we are to have a Committee that works, and does not merely feed stories to the newspapers with which to undermine public confidence in this place, they will have to act responsibly and resist the opportunity to make partisan accusations.

Michael Jabez Foster: rose—

Gerald Howarth: I will give way in a moment.
	I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) is not now in his place, but I merely wish to say that, as he knows, in the last Parliament I complained that he had complained to Mrs. Filkin about John Major and said that the former Prime Minister had received remuneration for undertaking speaking tours in the United States. I make that point because the report raises issues of comparative treatment. My right hon. Friend the Member for North–West Hampshire mentioned general points that arise from the report, and I hope therefore that what I am saying bears on those remarks.
	The House must resist the temptation to be partisan in these matters, because the only institution that will be damaged is Parliament and the only beneficiary will be the media, which like to write salacious stories about our activities. They write no salacious stories about their activities and their private lives would not stand the scrutiny of a candle, let alone a searchlight.

Michael Jabez Foster: rose—

Gerald Howarth: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going way outside the scope of this debate by making those remarks. I hope that he will come back to the point after the intervention.

Michael Jabez Foster: Members of the Committee may be offended by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that they are partisan in their quasi-judicial role, especially those who are members of the legal profession. They would be most offended if it were suggested that they were not capable of fairness in their decision-making. How can the decisions be partisan when they are unanimous? Or does the hon. Gentleman wish to suggest that Conservative Members on the Committee are so timid that they cannot stand up for themselves?

Gerald Howarth: The idea that lawyers are uniquely virginal in such matters will strike the public as somewhat curious. Any of us who have had any experience of lawyers will know that they are very much part of this world, although some of us may wish that they were part of the next world.
	You have rightly suggested, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I should address my remarks specifically to the report and I happily do so. I have a great deal of time for the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and I share his religious convictions as a Christian gentleman. He suggested that we should in good faith accept the word of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), in so far as he did not receive the £200,000. The hon. Gentleman, in his personal statement today, made it clear that he still protests his innocence of the charge of receiving those funds. My problem with that is that—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has just pointed out—the Hollis accounts, which were signed by the hon. Gentleman himself as chairman of Hollis, showed the payment of £200,000 to him. Taken together with the invoice that Mr. Tom Bower has uncovered, the evidence appears to be overwhelming, and certainly more than the balance of probabilities, that the hon. Gentleman received the money or that TransTec received the money on his behalf. That is the difficulty.
	I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will permit me to contrast and compare the treatment of one hon. Member against that of another, because I believe that that is a legitimate approach in a debate on such a report. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) is indignant at my suggestion that the Committee is partisan, but I hope that he will accept the following points. In the last Parliament, the Committee did not show the good faith and indulgence that the hon. Gentleman thinks should be shown to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West to my former hon. Friend, Mr. Neil Hamilton. Few hon. Members will be surprised that I mention that name, because the House knows that he is one of my very closest friends. He was served a grave injustice by the Committee, on which several current hon. Members served in the last Parliament.
	Evidence was provided for the payment of £200,000 to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West—the company accounts and the invoice—but the Committee failed to find any such evidence relating to Mr. Hamilton. The Committee could not determine how much he had received, or how or when he had received it. It effectively convicted that man on the basis of no empirical evidence whatsoever.
	Such was the overwhelming case that Neil Hamilton made that the Inland Revenue has accepted entirely his accountants' claim for signing off on his accounts. In other words, there was no money from Fayed. Everyone knows that Fayed had an axe to grind because Hamilton would not do his bidding. That is why he went after Hamilton. It is as simple as that.

Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Howarth: No, because I do not want to stretch your courtesy to me too far, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	It is astonishing that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West has been given a rap over the knuckles and three weeks gardening leave from the House, when Mr. Hamilton and others—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) was about to say—have suffered a disparity of treatment that is acutely evident to the House.

Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Howarth: Not to the hon. Lady, on any account.
	It is unfortunate that the Committee has not accepted Mrs. Filkin's findings in total. The House will know that I hold no brief for the lady, but she was painstaking in this investigation. It is not a good omen for the future, and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire, the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, must prove his Committee's robust independence in these matters. He must ensure that hon. Members brought before the Committee receive parity of treatment.
	However, I want to end on a note of agreement. I hope that under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire the Committee will be much more robust in sweeping aside complaints that are of a partisan nature and which do not involve serious misdemeanours with regard to the House. Such complaints merely serve to undermine the House's status in public confidence.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House—
	(i) approves the First Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 297); and
	(ii) accordingly suspends Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, Member for Coventry North West, from the service of the House for three weeks.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Election Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Voters: specified documents

'(1) From 1st April 2003, paragraph (1E) of rule 37 of the parliamentary election rules applicable to elections in Northern Ireland, imported into Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 by section 1(2) of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985 (c. 2), is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
	(2) Sub-paragraphs (a) to (g) are omitted and the following are inserted:
	"(a) the plastic photographic card which is, or forms the counterpart of, a current licence to drive a motor vehicle;
	(b) a current passport issued by the Government of the United Kingdom or by the Government of the Republic of Ireland;
	(c) a senior citizen's concessionary fare pass issued by the Northern Ireland Department for Regional Development;
	(d) a current electoral identity card issued under section 13C of this Act.".'.—[Mr. Blunt.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Crispin Blunt: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 19, in clause 4, page 5, line 6, after "may", insert "be obliged to".
	No. 18, in page 5, line 28, leave out from "documents)" to "a" in line 29 and insert—
	'for sub-paragraphs (a) to (g) there is substituted'.
	No. 10, in page 5, line 29, at end insert—
	'(4) In Schedule 1 (parliamentary election rules), in rule 37(1E) (specified documents), sub-paragraphs (c) to (g) are omitted.
	(5) Subsection 4 shall come into force on 30th April 2003, or 15 months after the coming into force of the rest of this section, whichever is the latter.'.
	No. 17, in clause 7, page 6, line 37, leave out from "appoint" to end of line 39.

Crispin Blunt: In rising to speak to new clause 1, I wish to make it clear that I do so in the spirit that has accompanied the Bill in its progress to date. Hon. Members of all parties support the Bill's objectives. Like all other amendments tabled for debate today, the new clause is designed to help the Bill.
	I shall begin by recounting to the House a statement made in Cabinet by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He is reported by the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), to have said that the aim in Northern Ireland is to achieve the politics and the practice of politics that are normal in a liberal democracy. If that remark has been slightly mistranslated in its passage from what was originally said in Cabinet, I am sure that the House will forgive me. I am sure, however, that all hon. Members can sign up to that objective.
	The new clause deals with the identity of voters in polling stations and the timetable for the introduction of the legislation. As the Under-Secretary of State said in Committee:
	"The aim of the legislation is to make only secure photographic identification, such as a driving licence, passport, voluntary ID card and probably the Translink card acceptable as proof of identity at the polling station. There will therefore be four acceptable forms of identification."
	The new clause would give effect to the Minister's aims. It would also reinforce the removal of non- photographic forms of identification by putting a timetable on the process that is in line with the Minister's intentions. As he explained in Committee:
	"The target of the May 2003 elections has been at the forefront of my mind since I took responsibility . . . I am doing everything in my power, as are my officials, to meet that target".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2001; c. 93-96.]
	This first group of amendments is important in the historic context of bringing trust into the process of democracy in Northern Ireland, but it is perhaps not the most important in addressing head on the worst causes of electoral fraud there. Historically, the stories and accounts of personation in Northern Ireland have been legion. When the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs took evidence in 1998, it heard about people changing clothes and putting on wigs outside polling stations so that they could go in and pretend to be someone else. We heard such stories in Committee as well. It is essential that we support the Government and that voter identity in the polling station be as far as possible beyond reproach.
	There is evidence of counterfeit medical cards being used as forms of identification. That is why these provisions are required and the Minister's objectives must be supported. The Committee was told of the Royal Ulster Constabulary raiding the offices of a political party and identifying a production line of counterfeit medical cards.
	The new clause would assist the electorate if they were confused about the form of identity required in the polling station. The Northern Ireland Office commissioned research on the general election; it took into account the experiences of members of the public and polling clerks as well as considering polling station precedents. The evidence showed that a number of people were turned away from the polling stations because they had brought the wrong form of identification. Many had come with some form of photographic identification that was not listed; some had come with the wrong part of their driving licence, as the Northern Ireland driving licence is in two parts.
	New clause 1 would give effect to the Minister's objectives by listing four types of photographic identification. The hon. Gentleman told us in Committee that the measures could be introduced by regulation. However, if the House supports the Minister in his objectives, it will be appropriate to put this measure into primary legislation now. That is what is behind new clause 1(2). There was no dispute in Committee that having voters produce these forms of photographic identification was a desirable objective.
	The timetable that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have suggested in new clause 1 is the Minister's own. He has told us that his objective is to get this system up and running for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections due in May 2000, and we have taken him at his word.
	The transfer from non-photographic forms of identification to a completely photographic system offers great advantages in terms of certainty. The public information campaign in Northern Ireland can be undertaken by the Northern Ireland Office and also by the political parties there. It will be in their interests to ensure that all their supporters can take part in the election and that they obtain some acceptable form of photographic identification.
	The inclusion of concessionary fare passes for senior citizens as an acceptable form of identification after 2002, when I understand that the new photographic passes are to be introduced in Northern Ireland, will deal with the larger part of the population who do not have a driving licence or passport and who would otherwise need one of the new electoral identity cards. It would reduce the burden on the Northern Ireland Office and the chief electoral officer of producing electoral identity cards. Only a small proportion of the population would not have one of those three forms of identification.
	On the timetable in the legislation, the Minister may find that part of the electorate or a political party that wants to retain non-photographic forms of identification—so that they could continue to produce counterfeit medical cards, for example—organises to resist the introduction of an electoral identity card. The Minister made it clear in Committee that he would be influenced if there were such a body of opinion in Northern Ireland and if people did not take up the necessary electoral identity cards or have other acceptable forms of identification. If the legislation contains a date, as it would if new clause 1 were accepted, the Minister's hands would be tied, as would be the hands of the Department and the chief electoral officer, and they would have to ensure that the scheme was a success.
	I would be grateful if the Minister dealt with this matter in his reply. Did he say that it was impractical to introduce these measures for the May 2003 Assembly elections? He said that he was concerned that some of the electorate might resist taking up the identity card. If there are practical objections and it is difficult to meet the timetable for administrative or bureaucratic reasons, it would of course be appropriate to reconsider the deadline set in the legislation. If the Minister makes that point, I would not want to press the new clause in its present form. The date in the new clause is not immutable. It is meant to reinforce the Minister's position.
	I thoroughly respect amendments Nos. 18 and 19 tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who has stuck to the view that he and the other members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee took in 1998 when they recommended a new, universally issued electoral card. In Committee, the Minister raised an issue of principle, saying that the people of Northern Ireland should not be subject to impositions that were materially different from those imposed on the rest of the United Kingdom. The electoral identity card that the chief electoral officer will introduce under this legislation is to be voluntary—one could also use a driving licence, a passport or, hopefully, a Translink card.
	The proposals of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire would impose an identity card on the whole population of Northern Ireland. The debate about identity cards and their compulsory imposition on the electorate in a particular part of the United Kingdom should not be held in isolation, however. I thus tend to support what I assume is the view of the Minister: in these circumstances such an imposition would be wrong.
	Furthermore, to issue identity cards to the whole population of Northern Ireland would create a significant administrative burden. However, if one was dealing only with that small percentage of the electorate who do not have some suitable form of photographic identification, the proposals would be achievable, and at much less cost to the taxpayer—although we have been assured, throughout the Bill's proceedings, that resources are not an issue.
	Amendment No. 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), gives a timetable, but one that remains in the gift of the Secretary of State. Under the Bill's current provisions, the Secretary of State can choose when individual sections of the measure will come into force. The amendment thus does nothing to reinforce the Secretary of State's position; it merely imposes on him a 15-month waiting period once he has decided that he is ready to implement the provisionsunless, of course, that date happens to be before 30 April 2003.
	That is not necessarily the best way to proceed. If things slide to the right, as they tend to do in the course of time, we should find, if we accepted the amendment, that the Minister was stuck with a 15-month notice period when he had decided he was reasonably ready to implement the legislation. It would be preferable to work to a fixed date.
	If measures to combat electoral fraud are to be subject to acceptance by the electorate, as they would be if new clause 1 is not accepted, the Minister would be left open to undesirable pressures and persuasion from those parts of the electorate and political parties who want to continue to cheat the system. It would be better if the Minister's declared aims were reinforced by the acceptance of new clause 1.

Harry Barnes: I speak to amendments Nos. 19 and 18. The amendments are linked so as to produce the result I want. Amendment No. 19 provides that people would be obliged to obtain a photo-identity card. Amendment No. 18 would ensure that the card was universal for the electorate of Northern Ireland, so that it was the only form of photo- identification used at the polling station. Under the amendments, the card would be compulsory and universal.
	The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) argued that new clause 1 would prevent confusion, because it would restrict the forms of identity to four. That is a good argument. My amendment would prevent further confusion because there would be only one method availableonly one method would be publicised.
	In the United Kingdom, voter registrationapart from overseas votersis not voluntary; people are obliged to register and can be fined 1,000 if they fail to do so. Although far too many people are missing from the electoral registers, people are none the less legally obliged to register. I am in favour of improving electoral registration so that we achieve electoral registration of 100 per cent., or as near it as possible, so that everybody has the opportunity to exercise the rights to which they are entitled.
	In Northern Ireland, however, because of the special circumstances there, identification is required, correctly, at the polling station in order to exercise the franchise. To exercise the franchise in Northern Ireland, one needs to be on a register and one needs a form of photo- identification. I am arguing that one form of photo-identity card should be issued to everyone.
	Universality is a fundamental aspect of the operation of a democracy. Registration is voluntary in some countries, but that system is by no means as good as the system that we have in the United Kingdom. It is possible for overseas voters who qualify to register voluntarily, but that is mainly because we cannot impose compulsory registration on overseas residents. I do not believe that overseas residents should have voting rights in this country, but that may be a matter for another debate. However, I believe that it is particularly important that the photo-identity card should be provided universally, and that people should be obliged to apply for one.
	Amendment No. 18 applies particularly to the universal requirement. In 199798, the second report of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland was on electoral fraud. Many aspects of the report have been adopted in the Bill, which is generally to be welcomed as being in line with its provisions. Paragraph 64 of the report records:
	The Secretary of State
	at the time, it was Mo Mowlam
	rightly expressed dislike for a system which provided for different types of documentation according to whether a voter drove a car or had travelled abroad. She felt that this was divisive and we agree . . . Any new system of identification should be common to all voters in Northern Ireland . . . We, therefore, recommend that the present list of documents which prove identity should be replaced by a new, universally issued electoral card.
	I believe that the Select Committee was correct in making that recommendation. It is divisive to call on some people to seek to obtain a card while others may make use of passports, driving licences or other forms of identification that may be added to the list, such as cards for travel purposes. Many people would be missed, and the others would have to respond to the efforts of the Northern Ireland Office in order to register. It is much more likely that those people would apply for photo-identity cards if the requirement to obtain one were universal. In those circumstances, there would be a greater response from the public, the publicity would have much greater force and the social pressure to register would be considerable. So I believe in compulsory application for cards and the universal provision.
	I agree that the proposals represent a form of identity card for electoral purposes in Northern Ireland, and I support the notion of having identity cards in the United Kingdom. In fact, I believe that those identity cards should be linked with electoral registration, and a change in the law may be necessary to ensure that everyone is covered by such arrangements. For example, residents from overseas, who do not come from Commonwealth countries or the Republic of Ireland, are not entitled to register for elections, but it would be valuable if they had identity cards. As residents of the United Kingdom, they should be entitled to vote, but the Bill does not affect the whole United Kingdom.
	A special problem exists in Northern Ireland, so separate identification arrangements already exist there, and they will be developed and extended, or clarified, under the Bill. I simply want to clarify the arrangements on a better and more substantial basis than will be done under the Bill. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs knew what it was doing when it produced the reportit realised that those principles were important and should be responded to.
	I appreciate that amendments Nos. 18 and 19 may not reach the statute book and that I am pressing the Minister on them, but I should like to know whether the Government are thinking along these lines. That might have an affect on cards in Northern Ireland and then have some knock-on consequences for United Kingdom electoral arrangements.

Lembit �pik: I rise primarily to speak to amendments Nos. 10 and 17, both of which were tabled by myself, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
	As the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) correctly said, amendment No. 10 relates to the creation of a deadline by which time all this needs to be done. We suggest that that deadline should be 31 April 2003, or 15 months after the provisions are implemented, whichever comes later. Although the hon. Gentleman touched on part of this issue, let me explain why I feel that that is a more satisfactory arrangement than that proposed in new clause 1.
	The first powerful argument is that that arrangement would take account of the concerns that the Minister expressed in Committee, and we are seeking to help him and to provide flexibility, by ensuring that the target is achievable. In simple terms, the Government said in Committee that they envisage removing the non- photographic identity cards by the time that the next Assembly elections take place at the beginning of May 2003. That is why we have chosen the end of April, instead of the beginning of April, as is suggested in new clause 1.
	The 15-month leeway represents an insurance policy or backstop to ensure that, if something unforeseen occurs, the Government will not be held to have failed in their commitment to achieve something that we all wish to achieve. Unless the Government have very clear targets in the Bill, as was said in Committee, they will rob themselves of an opportunity to ensure that the changes that we have described come into force.
	Let us be realisticsome individuals will not be happy with the legislation, exactly because it prevents them from conducting electoral fraud, which, as we know, has taken place so often in Northern Ireland until now. Those people will do everything in their power to give the Government strong reasons why it would not be fair to introduce the legislation by any particular date. If we include such targets in the Bill, we will make it clear to those people that it is outside the Minister's or the Government's discretion to renegotiate those deadlines. In so doing, we would significantly strengthen the hand of the Northern Ireland Office in ensuring that the provisions in the Bill are brought into force.
	Amendment No. 17 would ensure that the Bill is brought into force as speedily as possible and that it is not cherry-picked in the process. There is no reason why the Government cannot implement the whole Bill at the same time. There is provision for the Bill to be introduced at different stages and at different times, but the amendment would remove the words
	and different days may be appointed for different provisions and for different purposes
	from page 6, line 37. The reason for that is simple. The enemies of an honest electoral system will seek to prevent the Government from implementing the provisions that are most disadvantageous to the fraudsters. They will provide all sorts of reasons for that and dress up their arguments by claiming that citizens will be disfranchised by the Bill.
	If the Bill is explicit and it is clear that it is a package that will be implemented as a whole, it is much less likely that individuals will be able to prevent the Northern Ireland Office and the executors of the Bill's provisions from carrying out their work. Executors will be able to say that it is not in their power to delay some parts of the Bill while implementing others. We hope that the Minister will consider our amendments sympathetically, because they are designed to strengthen the Government's ability to implement the Bill.
	I have concerns about amendment No. 18 because, as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) rightly pointed out, it would result in the compulsory use of an electoral identity card. It is a judgment call, but it appears to me that such a provision would be a little too prescriptive.
	In effect, the amendment would introduce an identity card that is likely, over time, to become a smart card that carries a great deal of information about individuals. I have an innate concern about identity cards, and such a proposal would be a bridge too far. I am determined that we should replace non-photographic identity with photographic identity for elections in Northern Ireland, but we should not go as far as the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
	I look forward to the Minister's remarks, and I hope that he will think seriously about amendments Nos. 10 and 17. Their sole intent is to strengthen the Government's ability to ensure that the Bill has teeth.

Eddie McGrady: It was evident from the contributions made in Committee that both sides supported the concept that identification for electoral purposes should be restricted as soon as possible to photo-identity. I and others tabled amendments to ensure that people could no longer use the non-photo identity documents that are most used for electoral fraud. For example, the medical card has been replicated in its thousands in Northern Ireland in an orchestrated way. Although social security benefit books are less easy to obtain, they are also used to perpetrate electoral fraud.
	I have great sympathy for the intention behind new clause 1. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he has considered the remarks made in Committee about aged persons' ability to use the Translink photo-identity as an electoral document. He gave the proposal fair wind in Committee, but I would like him to reaffirm that such a proposal will appear in amending rules and regulations.
	My problem with new clause 1 arises from something that the Minister said in Committee. Indeed, it is why I withdrew my amendments. In the second sitting, he clearly said that it was his intention by 2003
	that the new cards will be issued to those who do not have a passport or driving licence.[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 October 2001; c. 51.]
	Anyone who has not got a passport or a driving licenceor a Translink card, if the Minister accepts that suggestionwill be issued with the new electoral photo-identity card. That will enable all non-photographic forms of identification to be withdrawn or designated invalid for electoral purposes.
	I was happy and content with that assurance until unfortunately, in the third sitting, the Minister stated:
	It is the Government's intention not to remove non-photographic forms of identification that are presently permitted until everyone has a passport or a driving licence with a photograph, or has had a reasonable opportunity to obtain a photographic identification card for election purposes.[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2001; c. 84.]
	I quote that carefully because I want the Minister to respond to it. In the same paragraph, he said that the Government intend to remove all non-photographic forms of identification as soon as possible, hopefully before the anticipated Northern Ireland Assembly elections in 2003if not before then, of course.
	I want complete clarification of that. Does the Minister think that the electoral officer has sufficient resources and that it is practical to impose the withdrawal of non-photographic identification by, say, spring 2003? That is germane to the debate. I sympathise with the thrust of the new clause and would want that reflected in the rules and regulations that are imposed.
	If the Minister is able to reassure me on that, I will take on board his other caveat about the danger in the process. The lack of time, resources, technology or techniques could mean that a significant number of people will not have photo-identity cards by April 2003 and will be disfranchised if new clause 1 comes into effect. That is a subjective judgment. I need assurances about the resources and the technicalities as they relate to implementing the Government's intent, rather than worrying that the Bill's measures are not capable of being implemented by spring 2003.

David Trimble: It seems that there is a broad consensus on this issue. New clause 1 and amendments Nos. 10 and 17 would achieve the same objectiveto ensure that the identification for voting includes photographs. The second objective is to have the arrangements in place by 2003 in time for what we expect will be the next Assembly election. The Minister says that they are also his objectives. On that basis, I expect him to say that he is prepared to accept the new clause and amendments.

Des Browne: indicated dissent

David Trimble: The Minister may want to consider the exact form in which the amendments are drafted, but it is very much in his interests to accept them. I am rather disappointed to see the Minister shake his head when I say that. I advise him that it is greatly in his interests to adopt that course of action.
	In Northern Ireland, it has for a long time been clear that there is substantial abuse in respect of identification documents. They were introduced with the wholly laudable objective of preventing personation, and they succeeded in eliminating personation by all parties bar one. Personation in Northern Ireland is now committed by only one party, because only one party has the resources necessary to contravene the current system. Those resources should not be underestimated. The Minister knows that in financial terms, if not in manpower terms, that party's resources far exceed his party's. The Minister's party would have great difficulty matching it in terms of effective political organisation, because his party cannot match the resources of a party that runs rackets on a huge scale in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
	There is a serious problem because that one party has the resources needed to contravene the current arrangements and it does so through non-photographic forms of identification, especially the medical card. The abuse has been known about for ages, and for ages Members of Parliament and members of the Northern Ireland parties have urged successive Governments to deal with that abuse. I remember six or seven years ago speaking to Northern Ireland Office Ministers and being assured by them that they would tackle the problem and do so promptly. I was told that legislation would be in place in time for the next general electionthe one held in 1997; that legislation never appeared. In 1997, the new Labour Government assured us that they would tackle the issue and that legislation would be in place before the next general election; no legislation was in place by the time of this year's general election.
	Finally, the legislative process has started, but can the Minister assure us that he will achieve the objective of having only photo-identity by May 2003? I hope that he can, but I know that there has been bureaucratic resistance to such a measure for the past half dozen years or more. I strongly urge him to accept in one form or another amendments that would put on the statute book the requirement that the measure must have been implemented by May 2003. Without that discipline and that argument to use against those who adduce reasons to delay, I greatly doubt his ability to deliver.
	I do not doubt the Minister's intention, but I doubt whether he will be able to deliver in the next 18 monthsthe issue is delivery. We shall of course listen to what he has to saywhat promises and undertakings he makesbut I repeat that to ensure the objective is achieved, it would be better for the provision to be on the statute book.
	New clause 1 and the other amendments set out various forms of photographic identity document. Some of the proposals point towards the establishment of a system of identity cards for the whole population. The Liberal Democrat spokesman echoed the reservations voiced by the spokesman for the official Opposition. I have never understood why some people do not like the idea of identity cards, and I have never been able to find any coherent reason for opposing such a system.
	Identity cards do not cause a problem anywhere else in Europethis is one of the few occasions on which I recommend practice in the rest of Europe as a guide for us. Compulsory ID systems elsewhere are a convenienceit is quite a disadvantage not to have an identity card system. I see hon. Members turning around, and I do not want to open up an entirely different debate; I merely observe in passing that I do not understand the objections.
	I should like the Minister to respond to one point relating to identity documents and the proposals before the House. On Monday, the Home Secretary made a statement in which he said that he would introduce by January a system of identity cards for asylum seekers that would use fingerprints, signatures and biometric techniques. All those bits of information would be on a smart card that would be available by the end of this year. I think that I am right in saying that, in Committee, the Minister said there would be difficulty in producing smart cards in that time scale. Evidently, progress has been made since the Committee reported, but I urge the Minister to look again at including that range of material on the appropriate cards, as we are dealing with people who are adept at forgery and manipulating the system.
	There is a consensus in the House on the need to move to photo-identification alone and for that to be in place by May 2003. The only argument is about the details and ensuring that there is a statutory obligation; we urge the Minister to accept that there is a statutory requirement for such identification. That way, we might at least have some confidence. However, if we weighed the Government's pronouncements against the background of pronouncements by previous Northern Ireland Office Ministers stretching back over several Administrations, confidence would be in short supply.

Peter Robinson: For the most part, I walked the same path as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) in Committee, but we parted company on the issue of identification. The Minister is not being unreasonable in resisting the new clause; I trust that he will continue to do so.
	The general consensus in Committee was that, while we were keen to have a Bill that would be powerful and effective in limiting the activities of electoral fraudsters, we did not want to do anything that would deter a significant number of people in Northern Ireland from being able validly to register and vote. If we are to succeed in the interests of democracy, we must ensure that whatever good we achieve in deterring the fraudster is not offset by deterring people who are genuine and want to exercise their franchise, as it is intended that they should. The Committee considered that balance as, indeed, must the House; the Minister had to consider it when the amendment was tabled in Committee, and he must consider now that it has been tabled on Report.
	As right hon. and hon. Members have said, it is desirable to have an entirely photographic identification card system in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. Whether that identification is a driving licence, a passport, a custom-made ID card, or, hopefully, if the good intentions of the Minister are followed, the concessionary pass produced by Translink and the Department for Regional Development, the inclusion of which came about as a result of good, sound Democratic Unionist party policy, that is the way forward. However, we must recognise that, at the moment, the most popular forms of identification at elections in Northern Ireland are probably benefit books and medical cards.
	That is the reality; those of us who have attempted to carry out an investigation which, if not scientific, at least helped us to get some feeling of the use of identification at polling stations, came away with the clear view that those were the main identifiers in use. If that is the case, the burden is on the Government to ensure that those identifiers are replaced by photographic identification. The Minister should therefore delay any statutory requirement to take existing identifiers out of use and employ only photographic identification until he is sure that there is a sufficiently high uptake of the new identifiers.
	I would not vote for the Billthis is how important the matter is to meif I thought that the end result would be a significant number of genuine people being unable to vote and if, correspondingly, an unspecified number of people, whose total is probably hard to determine, were able to abuse the system. The political parties in Northern Ireland and the Government must therefore be satisfied that the uptake is sufficiently high. That does not remove the requirement that the Government should have a clear goal, nor does it remove the requirement that the Northern Ireland political parties should ensure that they keep to that goal and timetable as far as possible.

Andrew Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman recall points made outside the House about the vulnerability of the Government to pressure caused by intimidation of the republican population, which may be threatened and attacked for using photographic ID cards? The Minister gave an opaque response in Committee, but those are the people who will be vulnerable. If republicans are intimidated by their so-called representatives into refusing to use photographic ID cards, it will be impossible for the Minister to meet his deadline, unless it is included in the Bill.

Peter Robinson: That is a judgment that the Minister and, indeed, the political parties in Northern Ireland will have to make. If there is a campaign by a particular political party, that may very well be to the detriment of it and its political future. Every party should be consulted by the Minister periodically so that we are satisfied that progress is being made. There are other mechanisms in the House to call the Minister and Government to account if we believe that they are dragging their feet. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which championed the need for legislation, will undoubtedly want to observe its progress and receive periodic reports from the Minister to ensure that he is on course for the deadline which, I believe, everyone in the House, wants to be met.
	None the less, it would be irresponsible of the Minister to include in legislation a requirement for the removal of key identifiers for what is probably the majority of voters in Northern Ireland without being satisfied that they had taken the opportunity to get new ID cards, whether concessionary passes from Translink and the Department for Regional Development or cards produced by the chief electoral officer. In this case, it is right to support the Government because they are acting both sensibly and responsibly.

Patrick Mercer: I want to underline the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and pay tribute to many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). Furthermore, I admired the eloquence of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), especially his comments on the timetable for the legislation.
	Many of my constituents in Newark and Retford are currently serving in Northern Ireland with the Sherwood Foresters; they have been there for almost two years. Last weekend, I spoke to one of their company commanders, a personal friend with whom I served in precisely the same campOmagh12 years ago, performing the same duties in that part of world. The battalion's life has changed very little in the interim. When I asked my friend what he was doing, he said, Guess what? I am on election training again.
	To most people, the idea of forces serving in Northern Ireland probably sounds exciting, but alongside the dreadful upsurge of troubles in places such as north Belfast, there is a routine part of operations for the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and all ranks in the Army, Navy and Air Force who serve over there.
	I recall first having to protect a polling station back in 1975 in Dungiven. I was told that that would be the responsibility wholly of the electoral officers and the RUC, but it did not turn out that way. The RUC was stretched, as it is now, and the Army ended up taking a hand. Again, in 1977 I was faced with the same duties. In my nine tours in Northern Ireland, I do not think that I once avoided getting involved in an election protection scheme of one sort or another. Slowly, over the years, the duties have become more and more formalised, so poor old Tommy Atkins is faced with all sorts of complications in trying to avoid election fraud, support the RUC and support the electoral officers.
	There was a funny side. I remember a tractor coming backwards to a checkpoint that I was holding. It was polling day, and we were protecting a polling station; I cannot remember whereFermanagh, probably, in the middle of nowhere. A tractor backed all the way into the checkpoint. It turned out that the occupants were going to vote, but all the forward gears on the tractor had given out. So intent were those people on voting that they used just the reverse gear.
	In west Belfast in 1982, we were warned that any number of attempts at personation would be made and that disguises would be used. We found a young man who looked curious, his cheeks puffed out with cotton wool. It turned out that he had a boil on his gum. Such were the difficulties of trying to understand what was going on and the various modes and means of personation. Now, training for polling protection has become formalised as a lengthy package for every unit serving in Northern Ireland and for the police, who do their best over there.
	As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, there are people and parties who want the legislation to be delayed. It is in their interests that photographic means of identification should not be adopted speedily and that the target date of 1 April 2003 should not be met. In view of the considerable amount of time that is wasted by the security forces, particularly the Army, whose duties should be far less complex and technical, I urge the Minister to look closely at the timetable and to introduce a universal photographic means of identification. Above all, the timetable must be adhered to, so that by April 2003 there is watertight legislation that will enable electoral fraud to be minimised in situations that are always difficult and fraught with problems.

Des Browne: I am pleased that the debate in the Chamber today has continued on from the constructive and helpful way in which the Committee conducted its affairs. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.
	I shall resist the new clause and all the amendments. I shall deal first with new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 10 and 17, which all seek to impose a timetable on the removal of non-photographic identification from the list of specified documents. The other amendments, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) explained, are intended to make the electoral identification card compulsory for all voters in Northern Ireland.
	As I said repeatedly on Second Reading and in Committee, the next scheduled Assembly elections in Northern Ireland are in May 2003. That has always been and will remain our target for the removal of all forms of non-photographic identification from the list of specified documents. However, for reasons with which I will deal in detail and which have already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), I must retain a degree of flexibility.
	The people of Northern Ireland must be informed aboutbut, more importantly, they must acceptthe electoral identity card. I have no intention of creating circumstances that inadvertently disfranchise people who do not have confidence in the system. The electoral identity card will be a voluntary card, but it will be in the interest of all the political parties in Northern Ireland to ensure that their voters obtain a card if they require one. We all have a duty as parliamentarians to explain that to the people of Northern Ireland and to help instil confidence in the process, as there is cross-party support for the measure.
	A major publicity campaign will be necessary to ensure that everyone in Northern Ireland is aware of the changes and aware of the photographic identification that they will need to exercise their franchise. It is not an unreasonable position for the Government to take to leave open the timetable for removing the existing prescribed documents which are not photographic, until we are satisfied that there has been sufficient uptake of the new electoral identity card.
	There is no advantage to us in passing legislation that will make electoral fraud more difficult if, at the same time, we disfranchise legitimate and valid voters. Obviously, we will have to make a judgment as to whether people are volunteering for the identity cards, and a decision must be made as to what effect that will have on the poll. I repeat again that May 2003 is our target date for removing all forms of non-photographic identity from the list of specified documents, but I will not take the decision lightly.
	I must retain the flexibility to assess whether there has been sufficient uptake of the electoral identity card, and to consult fully with the political parties in Northern Ireland before I make that decision. I am reinforced in that view by the fact that hon. Members whose constituents will be affected by the Bill realise that flexibility is crucial. That is no doubt why the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Belfast, Eastthe only two Northern Ireland Members who were present when we last voted on the issuevoted against the amendment during the Committee stage.

Lembit �pik: Does the Minister understand that at the core of the argument for setting the deadline is the recognition that the Government are not passive in the matter? They do not merely react to the circumstances. The deadline would oblige people to get photographic identification. My concern is that the Minister is taking too passive a role for the Government in the matter.

Des Browne: My understanding is that I had been criticised for taking too active a role and for retaining the decision to myself. I intend to consult all the political parties in Northern Irelandnot all of which are represented in the Houseabout our progress in implementing the plan that I have set out. I have no intention of deviating from the objective of May 2003, but at various stages I will have to make a judgment on whether the people of Northern Ireland are being taken along in that process.
	That responsibility is not mine alone; it is the responsibility of other politicians in Northern Ireland who support the change. We will all have to work together towards that objective. If any party decides to spoil the process, that will be a consideration, but it will not deflect me from the decision that I intend to make, if it is appropriate. The decision will be made in the circumstances, and it will not help the process if we impose an unrealistic timetable at this stage[Interruption.]
	The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) says that the timetable is mineyes indeed, but to impose it by statute would make it unrealistic, as that would deny the reality that a considerable number of people who are not represented in this debatethe votersmust be taken along with us.

Crispin Blunt: Can the Minister reassure the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and me that his arguments are based on considerations of practicalitywhether it will be possible for him to introduce the cards in time for 2003, and whether the public information campaign to which he referred will achieve his objective in terms of take-up of the card? If he can run a public information campaign and introduce the measures, surely it would be in his interest to reinforce his position in statute.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, as it gives me the opportunity to set his mind at ease on the practicalities. I am confident that we can meet, in practical terms, the objective that I have set. Earlier, he invited me to tell him whether practical difficulties would arise and he said that he would not insist upon the amendment if that was the case. I do not seek to use that excuse, however, as my understanding is that the measure can be achieved practically. The one element that I cannot assess is the valid response of the ordinary voters of Northern Ireland, on which I shall have to make a judgment. That is the only reason that I have ever given for the need to retain flexibility. I am not alone in holding that view, which has support. Hon. Members who represent significant parties and a substantial number of voters in Northern Ireland agree that that is the appropriate approach. There is a difference of view about the matter, but that is my position and has been since the issue was injected into the debate.

Andrew Turner: Putting it bluntly, the Under-Secretary appears to have handed Sinn Fein a veto on the process by refusing to include a deadline in the Bill. What will happen if it can blackmail, bully or intimidate its supporters into not carrying the card? I understand the argument of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that they have no interest in doing so, but he is wrong. The Under-Secretary has saidhe can correct me if I am wrongthat he could not introduce it without evidence of widespread support from all the parties. Is not that handing the bullies a veto?

Des Browne: With respect, the hon. Gentleman misrepresents me. I have never said that any party has a veto. Contributions to the debate suggest that one party may seek to obstruct implementation. If that happens between now and May 2003, it will be a factor that must be taken into account, but in no circumstances am I suggesting here or in any debate that if a party chooses to cause such difficulties, it will be a reason for not introducing the photographic identification cards. I am saying that we cannot introduce a change if an accidental effect is to disfranchise people who wish legally to exercise their vote, as would happen if they had no confidence in the system. It will be my responsibility as a Minister, and the responsibility of other politicians who vote for the change and operate within politics in Northern Ireland, to work together to achieve confidence. If we achieve that confidence, we will achieve the objective. There is no practical reason why we cannot do so.

Lembit �pik: I intervene a second time only because the issue is so important. Everyone seems to agree with the desired outcome, but the Under-Secretary seems to need some flexibility just in case his desired deadline is not achieved. Will he at least consider including in the Bill a deadline that he is pretty certain can be achieved, even if it is May 2005 or 2006? That would at least enable everybody to know there is a date after which it would not be acceptable to use inappropriate identification

Des Browne: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, he asks me to put certainty into uncertainty. I am suggesting that there is one uncertain element in the process: the response of the voters. Until that element is tested, we will not know its effect. As I do not know how the electors will respond, it is pointless to include a deadline at all. I cannot attach certainty through uncertainty.

David Trimble: I am slightly confused about the point that the Minister is trying to make. Is he saying that he cannot introduce the measure if there is an insufficient take-up of cards, or that he will not do so if people lack confidence in the system? Most of his comments suggest that he holds the latter position. If that is the case and he is concerned only about whether people have confidence, will he explain on what possible grounds they might not be confident?

Des Browne: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. If I was not making myself clear, I shall try to do so now. I was trying to explain that if the small proportion of people who may need the card do not have confidence in the system and do not claim it, that will lead to a lack of take-up. One is a consequence of the other. He shakes his head, but as neither of us has asked voters to come forward for voluntary or compulsory identity cards, he can be no more confident that his assertion is any better than mine in respect of whether a lack of confidence will lead to a lack of take-up. With all due respect to himthese are his voters and he may know them better than mehe has never before asked the electorate to do this. We should work together to inspire confidence in the system and to get people who do not have this new form of photographic identification to come forward for voluntary cards. We must secure sufficient take-up, so that we can pass the test that we have set ourselves and ensure that everybody has a reasonable opportunity to obtain the card. With confidence, we can then remove the non-photographic forms of identification.

David Trimble: rose

Des Browne: Obviously, that is not clear enough for the right hon. Gentleman; no doubt I have confused him even more. We will soon find out.

David Trimble: I think that I am beginning to understand the Minister. He is using the word confidence when it would be better not to do so. He appears to be speaking purely about uptake. He said that we had not asked people to do the same thing before, but that is not true. We successfully introduced the concept of identity documents for elections, which is novel to people outside Northern Ireland, just as we introduced different forms of voting long before any other part of the United Kingdom. The electorate of Northern Ireland are capable and intelligent enough to cope with the situation, as they have proved time and time again. The Minister appears to be speaking purely about uptake. He also used the word confidence, but that is a different thing. Lack of confidence could be a factor in any failure to take up the card, but it would not be the only one. I was trying to find out whether he would take the decision purely on the basis of whether there was a lack of confidence or whether the matter is simply one of take-up. It appears that he is talking more about take-up than anything else.

Des Browne: If the right hon. Gentleman now knows what I am talking about, I can move on.
	I regret to say that I shall also resist amendments Nos. 18 and 19, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire. I express regret because he knows the regard in which I hold him on these issues. He has made a valuable and consistent contribution to debates about them for many years.
	The amendments propose that the electoral identity card should be mandatory and the only form of identification that is acceptable at the polling station in Northern Ireland. As we said in the White Paper, the Government's ultimate aim is for every voter in Northern Ireland to be issued with an electoral smart card bearing a unique identifier. I think that that answers another question asked by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. In a moment, I shall deal specifically with his point about Home Office proposals. As I told the House on Second Reading, the introduction and use of an electoral smart card bearing a unique identifier is an aspiration. If every voter in Northern Ireland had to be issued with such a card, we would effectively be requiring all adults who wished to vote to carry a mandatory identification card.
	There would be no point in introducing a mandatory smart card unless we could be certain that it was more secure than the existing forms of photographic identification. It would therefore need to contain biometric data about the holder, be that an iris scan, fingerprint or hand geometry scan.
	The Government would be foolish to rush into such a radical new scheme before we could be confident of the practicalities or that the voters and political parties in Northern Ireland were happy to accept such a scheme. I hope that I have used the word confident properly in that sentence. We will continue to give further consideration to when it might be possible to initiate such a secure electoral identity scheme. However, such a scheme would not be introduced without wide consultation with all interested parties, and primary legislation would be required to introduce such a card. Hon. Members who seek an assurance from the Government should be aware that it remains our intention, as expressed in the White Paper, to proceed to such a system.

Harry Barnes: I thank my hon. Friend for his earlier comments. The point about take-up has some relevance to my amendments. If a situation is reached where the take-up of identity cards is inadequate and the other forms of identification have to be usedif the legislation has not bittenwe may have to look closely at a system that is universal and compulsory. However, I welcome the Minister's comments about potential developments.

Des Browne: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will use words similar to his later in my speech. If the system proposed in the Bill is not successful, we may have to look at proceeding more quickly to some form of compulsory card with the benefits that I have described.
	The right hon. Member for Upper Bann asked about Home Office plans for biometric identification cardsto be known as the application registration cardfor asylum seekers. This is an extension of the current asylum application system. The Home Office already collects the fingerprints of all asylum seekers when they make their asylum application, so there is already a database of the fingerprints of all asylum seekers in this country. Immigration officers use mobile quick-check units to check asylum seekers' fingerprints against the database.
	At the moment, asylum seekers are issued with a standard acknowledgement letter. The application registration card is designed to replace that letter. There has been concern at the ease with which those letters are being forged. A smart card containing a biometric element would make forgery virtually impossible.
	That new system is very different from one in which we would require every adult who wanted to vote in Northern Ireland to provide us with their fingerprint or an iris scan. Not only would that involve mandatory registration, it would raise important questions of civil libertieswhether it was appropriate to require a person to provide biometric data about themselves before they were able to vote. Much discussion and consultation has to take place before we could proceed to a position where we could require people to provide that level of data about themselves before they were able to vote.
	The electoral identity card proposed by this Bill will be freely and widely available to all those who require it. It represents the quickest way to create a situation in which we can remove from use the medical card and the other non-photographic identification. Our objective is to stop personation. We believe that requiring voters to show secure photographic identification at the polling station will meet this objective and, so far, no one has argued that that will not be the case.
	Although I have cautioned that we must move steadily on the introduction of the electoral identification card and that we must take the electorate with us, I acknowledge that we have to take action as quickly as possible and reasonable. Introducing the electoral identity card as a stepping stone towards an electoral smart card allows us to act more quickly to remove all forms of non-photographic identification from the list of specified documents. That is why we are proposing the legislation in the first place, and why we intend to take advantage of the fact that other people can use alternative forms of photographic identification, such as driving licences and passports, that cannot easily be forged.
	This brings me to the Translink smart card, which is mentioned in new clause 1. I have said that I am willing to add the new Translink smart card, to be issued to all those aged 65 and over in Northern Ireland from April next year, to the list of specified documents. However, it would be entirely inconsistent with what we are trying to achieve in the Bill to allow the smart card to be added to the list of specified documents before both the chief electoral officer and I are certain that the card will be secure proof of identity.
	As I said in Committee, my officials are working with those at the Northern Ireland Department for Regional Development to resolve the outstanding problems about the security of the Translink smart card. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, East on his recent appointment as the Minister for Regional Development. I am sure that the outstanding issues will be resolved all the more quickly with him in command. Once these problems are resolvedI am sure that they will beI will happily add the Translink smart card to the list of specified documents. That can be done by secondary legislation at the appropriate time.
	Our target has been and will remain 2003 for the removal of all forms of non-photographic identification from the list of specified documents. I would not have continued to state repeatedly that May 2003 was our target if I did not believe that it was possible for all those in Northern Ireland who require an electoral identification card to have one by that date. However, we must maintain a level of flexibility, for all the reasons I have outlined.

Crispin Blunt: This debate has mirrored the one that we had in Committee, in that the longer the Minister went on defending his proposal, the less convincing he became. As the Minister went on, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and I became more and more incredulous at the case the Minister was attempting to put. I noted that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) shared my reaction.
	Having listened to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), one can only admire the intellectual consistency and clarity that his solution would bring. However, because of the points that have been touched on earlier, I would continue to resist his amendments. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and I share his concerns about the practicality of introducing the cards and about whether the Minister can, in practice, meet his own deadline.
	The hon. Member for South Down asked about the resources for the chief electoral officer, and that remains an issue. It is clear that the officer is overstretched in a number of respects. That was shown by his inability to check the absentee votes at the last general election. Those have not been tested fully because the officer is now engaged in putting together the new register. That is merely an example to show that there is at least a question mark as to whether he has sufficient resources.
	I agree with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that what we are putting forward is entirely in the Minister's own interests. Without the discipline of having a date in statute, the Minister is likely to fail to get the Bill on the statute book. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire challenged the Minister to agree that if the deadline could not be 2003, it could be 2005 or 2006. There should be a date in statute to ensure that the legislation will definitely come in.
	If we had the certainty of a dateeven if it is not April 2003, as the Liberal Democrats have suggestedthe actions of the Minister's officials and the public information campaign in Northern Ireland to achieve take-up of the card would be reinforced by the fact that the scheme was to come into effect, so that there was no point in any organisation seeking to obstruct it.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister's claim that he cannot put a deadline in the statute because he does not know the rate of take-up could be applied to all kinds of legislationfor example, the introduction of mandatory use of rear seat belts? On every other matter, we seem to have deadlines, but on this one very important matter he is resistant.

Crispin Blunt: It is odd. I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my perplexity.
	I listened with care to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). He supports the Government on this issue, and we must agree to disagree. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) made a telling contribution about the historic importance of personation in electoral fraud in Northern Ireland and stressed the importance of a timetable, not least to give members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the armed forces, as well as the electoral officers, some certainty about when the transfer is to take place.
	The Minister may come to regret resisting the assistance that we are offering him. He should have a chance to think again on the issue. We will want to examine his arguments in another place to determine whether it is appropriate to return to the matter. We are about to discuss more important causes of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland, so I will not insist on the new clause at this stage, but it may be appropriate to press the matter in another place. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the fact that his arguments have not convinced the House, and that he and the Government will think again.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2
	  
	Registration: notification of multiple registrations

'(1) In section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (maintenance of registers: annual canvass) there is inserted
	(5A) The information to be obtained by the use of such a form for the purposes of a canvass in Northern Ireland shall include an indication of any other address at which the person is registered.
	(2) In section 10A (maintenance of the registers: registration of electors) and in section 13A (alteration of registers) of the 1983 Act there is inserted
	( ). An application for registration in respect of an address in Northern Ireland shall include an indication of any other address at which the person is registered.
	(3) Any person knowingly giving false information in response to any requirement of this section is guilty of an offence with liability on summary conviction to
	(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months; or
	(b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale,
	or to both.'.[Mr. Blunt.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Crispin Blunt: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The new clause, as new clause 8, was withdrawn in Committee, following the Minister's welcome statement that he had been influenced by our debate and wanted to give the matter further thought. He said:
	I am coming to the view that there might be some value in including in a canvass return a question such as: 'Have you registered at another address or do you intend to register at another address?' Since we shall be using individual canvass forms rather than household forms, that might have additional value.
	He went on to say:
	I give the Committee an undertaking to discuss the issue with my officials and the chief electoral officer and to consult the parties in Northern Ireland, the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, if that is appropriate, so that we have a clear position on Report.[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2001; c. 126-27.]
	If there was consultation with the official Opposition, it did not include me. I waited with hope until Monday evening, the deadline for tabling amendments, to see whether a Government amendment on the matter would appear. Sadly, none did, which is why I retabled the new clause.
	I speak with a slight sense of foreboding, because I fear that the Government have not decided to accept the argument. Multiple registration is an extremely important issue. I draw the attention of the House to the Select Committee report on electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland, which has been the origin of many of the proposals in the Bill. Paragraph 23 says:
	An accurate Register is vital. Without a trustworthy Register, there can be no secure confidence in the electoral system. At present, it is not absolutely clear how reliable the Register is. We do not share the confidence of the Interim Review Report that 'while there may be some scope for minor adjustments to the current system for the registration of electors in Northern Ireland, in actual terms the accuracy of the register is not seriously in question.' On the contrary, in our view the evidence indicates that there may be a serious level of multiple registration, at least in some parts of Northern Ireland.
	The Minister will be enormously familiar with that, as he was a member of the Committee and signed up to its report, as did all the other members.
	In addition to the Committee's statement, and no doubt influenced by it, there is the experience of the party of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), which undertook an exercise to identify pairs of people with the same name. The largest concentration found in Britain was 6,000, yet in a constituency in Northern Irelandpresumably Belfast, Westthere were 18,000 people with the same name as somebody else. That is a serious ground for suspicion that there may be considerable multiple registration and illegal multiple voting.
	There has been no evidence to challenge the Select Committee's conclusion in 1998:
	We acknowledge that registration in more than one place is a useful right for students and others.
	We had that debate in Committee, and that was our conclusion, although the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) took a different view and thought that any form of multiple registration should be against the law. The Select Committee continued:
	Those who have a legitimate reason to register in two or more places should be allowed to do so, but should be under a duty to indicate that they are doing so and where the other registered addresses are.
	In our previous debate, the hon. Members for South Down and for Belfast, East expressed reservations, but on this issue there is cross-community support. I hope that I am not prejudging the issue, but the remarks of the hon. Member for South Down in Committee and the fact that the hon. Members for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) and for Belfast, East have put their names to new clause 2 make it clear that there is such support. I hope that I have correctly interpreted the remarks of the hon. Member for South Down in Committee at column 122.
	The Government have an opportunity to reinforce an area in which there is welcome cross-community agreement. Our proposal gained the support of all the parties in Committee other than the Government. As he took the same view in 1998, I hope that the Minister, too, will offer us his support, as he suggested in Committee that he might. I look forward to his response.
	If national insurance numbers were used on the register, which is the subject of our next debate, the new clause would not be needed, as we would then have a method whereby the register could be properly tested, but if the Government intend to resist the inclusion of national insurance numberswhich our Committee debate clearly suggested that they wouldit becomes extremely important to address the issue by obliging voters to notify if they are registered in more than one place.

Eddie McGrady: Again, we are liable to repeat the arguments made in Committee, where the Minister said:
	I am coming to the view that there might be some value in including in a canvass return a question such as: 'Have you registered at another address or do you intend to register at another address?'
	The Minister added that, as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said:
	Since we shall be using individual canvass forms rather than household forms, that might have additional value. If the hon. Member for Reigate is prepared to withdraw his amendment, I shall undertake to consider that possibility between now and Report stage
	that is, tonight. He continued:
	I shall consult with the parties in Northern Ireland, and with the chief electoral officer, and I shall come back with a clear position on Report. I am more persuaded now than I was before I listened to the debate.[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2001; c. 126.]
	I hope that he will be, as we say in Northern Ireland, even more more persuaded after tonight's debate.
	I believe that in response to some of my questions in Committee, the Minister suggested that it was a simple administrative matter to pose such a question on either the household or the individual registration form, whichever one we decide to have, and find out whether the person registering has registered at another address or addresses. I went on to suggest for the Minister's consideration that if that were the case, the would-be elector could simply say on the form which of the addresses he proposed to use in the election to which the new register would be germane. That is a simple administrative consideration, concerning the layout of the form. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has been further persuaded since our debate in the fourth sitting of Standing Committee D.

Lembit �pik: I would oppose the new clause if it took away people's right to choose where to vote, but as it is formulated, it can be regarded only as a matter of common sense. After an election, it would help to work out much more quickly who is who and who has done what. We have already heard the strong rationale for making sure that we can de-duplicate potential multiple voters who have used different addresses. I, too, was encouraged that the Minister seemed to share this concern and, as the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said, gave a strong indication in Committee that he saw the sense of what is now being proposed in new clause 2.
	We know that the Minister is passionate, as we all are, about getting rid of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. I also know that he, with his commitment to cross- community relations, will accept a good thing when he sees it, even if it originates from the Conservative party. [Interruption.] I could not resist saying that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is especially true if the idea has the support not only of Opposition Members but also of those who sit on the Government Benches. On the assumption that he will accept the amendment as a sensible and not very onerous addition to what we require of voters when they register, I thank him in advance for his good sense.

Peter Robinson: I join those who have confirmed that there was a consensus within the Committee that requiring people who register to supply that further piece of information was not an onerous hardship to place on anybody. I do not think that it would do any violence to the Bill, or to the Minister, to insert it.
	The Minister certainly did not consult me, as has been suggested. I can only assume that that means that he does not require any legislative force

Des Browne: I myself signed letters to the leaders of all parties in Northern Ireland, so although I did not consult the hon. Gentleman himself, I wrote to the leader of his party. I know that the post was delivered, because the leader of the Alliance party responded to my letter. That is the only response that I have had.

Lembit �pik: rose

Des Browne: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, if he can contain himself.
	My position has not changed from the position that I stated in Committee; it is not conditional on parties in Northern Ireland signing up to it. None the less, I wrote to all the parties in Northern Ireland at the same time.

Peter Robinson: The House will judge whether that lives up to the expectation of the consultation that we were promised. I am surprised that the Minister could determine who the leader of the Alliance party was in order to send him the letter, so he must be congratulated on that.
	The requirement would put little pressure on anybody filling out their registration form, and would supply information that would be useful in the electoral office for determining on the foot of the marked register whether people had voted illegally during an election. That information could also be used for the same purpose as some of us have suggested the national insurance number be used, if it were included as a further mechanism. It would allow us to look into multiple registration and multiple voting with a lot more information to hand.
	It is right to say that in Committee I opposed both multiple registration and multiple voting. I did not express the same opposition in the Select Committee, for a reason that I explained in the Standing Committee. I said that I felt that in our proceedings on the Bill we had done much to overcome a number of the existing weaknesses in the system, but that as soon as we strengthened those parts of the system, we could be certain that the purposeful fraudsters would look to see where the new weaknesses were. If they do that, they will be thinking about multiple registration and multiple voting.
	If that is the case, the Minister should, at the very least, identify those with multiple registration, because it would be an offence in itself not to fill in the form fully and properly. If the Minister is saying that he is not prepared to include the question on the registration form, I regret that. Is he saying that he is still looking at the issue, and has not ruled it out? He needs to satisfy the House on that issue.
	I believe that the registration form should include the question, and I hope that the Minister can go further than he did in his intervention in meeting what seems a legitimate point of concern. It would not drive a coach and horses through the legislation.

David Trimble: I shall not keep the Minister long, but will let him clarify his position. His body language earlier suggested that he would accept the idea, and I hope that he does. I shall simply express our support for the new clause, and say that I do not doubt what the Minister said when he intervened. Had I seen his letter, he would have received a positive response. Where the letter went is an interesting question.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that the fraudsters, balked at one point, would move on to other areas, and he thought that multiple registration was one of those. The fraudsters also move on to entirely false registrationsregistering the names of people who do not exist. The next set of amendments contain measures that try to cope with that problem.

Andrew Rosindell: I am pleased to be able to contribute to this vital debate, and to underline many of the points made by other hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I thank you, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part tonight.
	I want to give my broad support to the Bill, but I have a number of specific concerns. After listening to the discussion so far, my greatest worry is the apparent weaknesses in the Bill. In so many areas, there appear to be loopholes and issues that are not being addressed in the way in which I believe most Members in the Chamber this evening would like them to be addressed.
	In the past, there has clearly been much electoral fraud in Northern Ireland, and that will continue if checks are not introduced. That is not questioned on either side of the House tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to stop the hon. Gentleman, but I wonder if he is making a Third Reading speech on the Bill in general. Is he speaking specifically to new clause 2?

Andrew Rosindell: Yes, if I may continue, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One of the most significant deficiencies of the Bill is the failure to compel those registering to vote at more than one address to declare that information at the point of registration. The Government are right not to prevent individuals from registering at more than one address. Indeed, in many cases, doing so is necessary. For example, Members of Parliament probably register at their addresses in London and in their constituencies, which is a reasonable thing to do. However, the situation in Northern Ireland needs to be addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate mentioned that some 18,000 names are registered twice on the same electoral register in the constituency of Belfast, West. That arouses many suspicions and therefore I hope that the Minister will consider supporting new clause 2.
	The situation in Northern Ireland needs tightening up for many reasons, some of which have already been outlined. There is no evidence that simple monitoring alone will solve the problem. The system currently operates on trust and while that is acceptable for the majority of decent, law-abiding citizens who would not dream of trying to defraud the system, it allows for widespread abuse. A declaration from those registering to vote about the number of addresses for which they intend to register would go far in clarifying those who are genuinely registering for multiple addresses and those who are not.
	Some may argue that the system would not work, because declarations would be signed only by honest people, and those who sought to pervert the course of democracy would evade making them. Nevertheless, with the right level of efficient and competent administration and a good use of technology, declarations would provide clarity for those who are genuine multiple-address electors, leaving the chief electoral officer and his staff free to monitor and catch offenders. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the situation. The Bill has many holes, but I hope that he will address this specific problem.

Des Browne: I looked forward to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) revealing his thoughts on the many holes in the Bill, and he is welcome to the debate at this stage. One or two issues were considered in Committee and on Second Reading and, with respect, it is a gross misrepresentation of the Bill to describe it as the hon. Gentleman did.
	In Committee, I gave an undertaking to discuss this issue with my officials and the chief electoral officer, to consult the political parties in Northern Ireland and to come back with a clear position on Report. I have not, in the short time since the Committee stage, been able to ascertain the views of all the Northern Ireland political parties, and it is important that I do so. As I said earlier, I wrote to the leaders of all Northern Ireland political parties, as far as I could ascertain them. Whether all those letters have been delivered is not my responsibility, but they were certainly sent and I have received one reply. It is incumbent on me to give the other leaders a reasonable time to respond, and we have not had much time between Committee and Report.
	The hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) are owed an apology. The circulation list for the letter was based on my contribution to the Committee on 18 October, recorded at column 126. Column 127, as the hon. Member for Reigate pointed out, includes a reference to the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. They were not included, due to an administrative error, and for that I apologise. The error will be corrected tomorrow. Thanks to this debate, of course, I know what the Opposition's position is, but I will consult them as I agreed to do.
	I am minded to agree with the chief electoral officer that a mandatory question on application to the electoral register, as suggested in new clause 2, would prove a useful tool in tracking multiple registration. However, I will resist the new clause as I do not believe that the penalty is proportionate to the failure to answer the question properly.
	Furthermore, on advice, I believe that a question such as, Have you registered at another address or do you intend to register at another address? could be put to electors on application to the electoral register by regulation rather than by an amendment to the Bill. Under paragraph 1 of schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, regulations may authorise the chief electoral officer to require persons to give information required for the purpose of his registration duties. Paragraph 13 enables regulations to make it an offence to fail to comply with, or to give false information in pursuance of, any such requisition of the registration officer as is mentioned in paragraph 1. The regulations may set a penalty not to exceed level 3 on the standard scale, which in Northern Ireland is 1,000.
	Therefore, it is possibleI am happy to give an undertaking to do so, subject to the consultation with the political parties in Northern Ireland and with the official Opposition and the Liberal Democratsto give the chief electoral officer the power by regulation to ask people if they are registered at another address on their application for electoral registration. Any person knowingly giving false information would be subject to a fine not exceeding 1,000, which is consistent with the penalty that applies to giving false information on other forms.

Crispin Blunt: The Minister gives an undertaking subject to consultation with the political parties. Five of those parties are represented tonight, and hon. Members from three of them represent constituencies in Northern Irelandand those are the three largest parties wholly committed to democracy in Northern Ireland, which is the subject of the debate. The Minister knows the views of those parties so why cannot he give the assurance in terms now?

Des Browne: Because there are other parties that are not represented in the House. If we are to change the electoral system, we should consult those parties. The hon. Gentleman knows who those parties are and he may not wish to consult one of them but, as a Minister, I have to consult them all. There are at least five other parties. I have written to their leaders, but I have not yet had a reply. Indeed, I have written to the leaders of the political parties represented in the House tonight and I have not had a reply.

David Trimble: That is a coincidence.

Des Browne: The right hon. Gentleman earlier called into question my desire to see this matter through and is now, by implication, calling into question my honesty about the letters I have written. I have evidence that one of the letters received a reply, and that all the letters went out in the same post.
	I am not concerned that I have not yet had replies from all the people to whom I wrote, but courtesy requires me to wait and allow them the opportunity to reply to me.

Quentin Davies: We must clear this matter up, as hon. Members may have to decide how to vote on the amendment. No one has impugned the Minister's honesty, or the good faith in which he gave that assurance. We accept the apology that he has given to the House, but we are perhaps impugning the efficiency of his Department. We leave it to him to sort that out.
	However, we have to draw the conclusion that the Minister is much more conscientious about consulting parties outside the Housea need that he has laboured at lengththan about consulting parties in the House. I am sure that he would not want to take up such a perverse position.
	If the Minister has not completed consultation with the parties that he has mentioned by the time that the Bill reaches another place, will he assure the House that the Government will not seek to block this amendment, or its equivalent, in the other place? I do not know on what date the Bill will be considered there, but will the Minister assure us that there will be no further obstacle to his issuing a regulation in accordance with the procedure that he has outlined?

Crispin Blunt: I am partly grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will not have my own honesty impugned, and neither will I allow the efficiency of those who have served this process faithfully and well to be impugned in this House. Those people have worked very efficiently up to now, and that includes the way in which they have serviced requests from other parties on this matter. In fact, all letters were all faxed and posted on 25 October, and in my hand I have a copy of a reply, dated 29 October, that I have received from the leader of one of the parties.
	An error was made in regard to the Conservative party. I have accepted responsibility for that, and apologised for it, but that error does not affect my view. The two parties affected by the error are represented in the House and have expressed their opinion on the matter.

Quentin Davies: indicated dissent

Des Browne: The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) appears irritated that I am replying to his intervention. I have apologised for the error, but that does not change the fact that I have written to a number of people for their views on this matter. Common courtesy requires that I give them a reasonable time to reply.
	I anticipate that in a fortnight from today I shall have had a reasonable time in which to reach an informed decision based on the views of the Northern Ireland political parties. I shall then write to all the parties to which I have written previouslyand to the official Opposition and the Liberal Democratsconfirming what I intend to do. At the moment, I am minded to introduce the question by regulation. No one has yet advanced an argument as to why I should not do that, and I do not anticipate that such an argument will be advanced.
	I am minded to act as I have described, but I have embarked on a process of consultation by letter, and common courtesy requires that I give the people to whom I have written the opportunity to reply.

Crispin Blunt: Clearly, this has not been a shining moment in the way that the matter has been handled by the Minister or his Department. I tabled a new clause in Standing Committee on the matter, and withdrew it when the Minister gave me an undertaking that he would consult me. I regarded that undertaking as an obligation, but I have accepted the Minister's apology in that regard.
	However, the Minister also gave the Committee an undertaking that he would be able to clarify the position on Report, yet the letters were not signed out by the Minister's officialsor by the Minister himselfuntil a week after he gave that undertaking. It is therefore impossible for him to be able to say that his position, following consultation, is now clear. That is not acceptable.

Des Browne: My position is clear.

Crispin Blunt: The Minister, from a sedentary position, says that his position is clear. However, it is clear that he has yet to consult and come to a conclusion. That is certainly not the implication to be drawn from what the Minister told Standing Committee D, when he said:
	I give the Committee an undertaking to discuss the issue with my officials and the chief electoral officer and to consult the parties in Northern Ireland, the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, if that is appropriate[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2001; c. 127.]
	I thought that the words if that is appropriate applied to the Minister's auxiliaries on the Liberal Democrat Benches, rather than to anyone else, but they now seem to apply to everyone.
	I wish the debate to return to the co-operative and good humoured mood that has characterised most of our deliberations so far. I hope that the Minister will undertake to ensure that the regulation that he has promised will be formulated and proposed before the Bill is considered in another place. However, if by that time there is no sign that the Government are proposing a regulation that resolves the problem of multiple registrationthe Minister has accepted the chief electoral officer's recommendation that there must be registrationwe will revisit the matter in another place. I am certain that the support for the measure evident in all parties means that the necessary provision will appear in the Bill. If the Minister wanted to reverse that, he would have to return to this House to do so.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1
	  
	Registration: provision of signature and date of birth

Crispin Blunt: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, after completed, insert
	'(aa) the National Insurance number of each such person, if they have one'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 7, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
	'and
	(c) the national insurance number of each such person, if they have one.'.
	No. 8, in page 2, line 9, at end insert
	'and
	(c) the national insurance number of each such person, if they have one.'.
	No. 2, in page 2, line 23, leave out
	'both his date of birth'
	and insert
	'his date of birth, his national insurance number if applicable,'.
	No. 9, in page 2, line 33, at end insert
	'and
	(c) the national insurance number of each such person, if they have one.'.
	No. 5, in clause 3, page 4, line 15, at end insert
	'(3A) In section 6 (absent vote at elections for an indefinite period) and in section 7 (absent vote at a particular election), there is inserted at the end of paragraph (1)(c) the words
	, which shall include the date of birth and the national insurance number of the applicants, if applicable.'.
	No. 6, in Title, line 2, after signatures, insert , national insurance numbers..

Crispin Blunt: Amendment No. 1 is designed to assist the Minister to return to the conclusion that he and his colleagues on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee reached in 1997. He was not at that time burdened by the cares of office, nor by the need to negotiate with the Treasury to ensure that the necessary resources are available for the actions that he has promised.
	This group of amendments is the most important to be debated this evening. In relation to the previous group of amendments, I hope that we shall in the end learn the considered position of five of the six parties involved in the Standing Committee. The Minister will know, however, that all the Northern Ireland parties support the proposal that people should supply their national insurance numbers when they apply to join the electoral register in Northern Ireland.

Harry Barnes: Some members of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs adopted a position that was not a knock-down argument in favour of this amendment. Had they not done so, I assume that the amendments that I tabled earlier would have been supported by the Opposition spokesman.

Crispin Blunt: Of course, unlike the Minister, I was not a member of that Select Committee and did not take part in its proceedings. I am perhaps therefore not entirely bound by the terms adopted by that Committee and do not feel a loyalty to them. But in connection with the first group of amendmentswhich would have required that everyone in Northern Ireland had an electoral identity cardI paid tribute to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) for his clarity, and for his consistency in sticking to the Select Committee's conclusions. I am therefore puzzled that the hon. Gentleman appears now to be inconsistent in his stance on national insurance numbers. He may of course have been influenced by the debates. The Government widened the membership of the Committee to include representatives from the SDLP and the DUP, which was extremely welcome. However, it meant that the Committee was, unusually in this Parliament, on a knife edge. On that occasion, every party except the Labour party supported making national insurance numbers a requirement to register. The majority in Committee was only nine to eight. The hon. Gentleman's vote was clearly of immense significance to the Government.
	Paragraph 58 of the 1998 Select Committee says:
	Registration forms should contain more identifying details to overcome the problem of illicit multiple registration and to make fraudulent applications in another's name harder. These should include date of birth, a signature and the National Insurance number of the voter.
	The Select Committee was heavily influenced by the evidence of Mr. Pat Bradley, who had been a chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland for nearly 17 years when he came before the Committee and who was clearly an expert. I should like to quote his responses to questions from the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs). When asked by the hon. Member for South Down about his canvassers collecting and confirming information for putting the register together, Mr. Bradley replied:
	The officers collect the data from each household. They collect the information on the registration form. They are not able to confirm the informationand that is what the system is set up for at the present timeor to turn round and be convinced on the spot that each person on that form has shown to the canvasser some sort of documentation to show they are who they claim to be and they live there. If you like, that is the weakness of the system, the fact that it is the householder's responsibility for putting down the names of those who are eligible and that information is then taken on board.
	The hon. Member for East Antrim then asked Mr. Bradley:
	Would the inclusion of National Insurance numbers, which are individual to everyone, not help that situation for your records?
	Mr. Bradley replied:
	I would welcome either a National Insurance number or a date of birth, and that is common in many countries.
	His next point was crucial:
	If one has the two parameters, i. e. the date of birth and National Insurance, it is a very easy matter to run a search through the computer database and that would solve the problem and I would welcome that very much. It would make life much easier and reduce the scope for abuse considerably.
	We had a lengthy debate about this in Committee. Indeed, the subject took up the whole of the Committee's first sitting, at the end of which the Minister replied to the Committee. I do not think that he convinced himself. Indeed, he was so unconvinced by his own arguments that he returned in the afternoon to put forward further objections to including national insurance numbers. I will deal with these in turn, and if I am being unfair about the arguments I am attributing to the Minister I hope he will correct me.
	The Minister's first argument was that people do not know their national insurance number or how to find it out. That argument does not stand up to analysis. The Minister was particularly concerned about the elderly. Elderly people receive pensions and therefore have their national insurance number immediately to hand in their pension book.
	In the process of registration, canvassers call at people's houses up to three times to get the information. The Minister shakes his head, but I received that information directly from the chief electoral officer. People have up to three weeks, if not longer, to complete the forms. To argue that people are unable to obtain their national insurance number in that period does not stand up. There are any number of forms of assistance open to them if they are unable to do so.
	The Minister also argued that people who did not pay tax or receive benefits might not have a national insurance number. He gave the example of a student who had come back from South Africa. The fact that the Minister was having to grub around for such examples showed a degree of desperation in his attempts to convince the Committee of the merits of his argument. My amendments and those in the name of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) address the matter by saying that the very few people who do not have a national insurance number cannot be required to give it. They hardly represent an overwhelming number of electors.
	The Minister argued that a chief electoral officer had to check records held at the Treasury, where all the national insurance numbers for the United Kingdom are held. He said that members of the Committee might say that that could be resolved and that no doubt, in terms of computer technology, it could be. We all say that, and as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, sifting Northern Ireland national insurance numbers would hardly be at the cutting edge of technology. To find a software programme that would distinguish between the national insurance numbers of people registered in Northern Ireland and those of the rest of the United Kingdom would not be terribly difficult.

Harry Barnes: It would not solve the problem entirely, because people are entitled to move from Britain to Northern Ireland. Presumably it would be difficult to find their registration numbers during that period.

Crispin Blunt: That was one argument. The Minister was adducing arguments under data protection legislation that it would be inappropriate for the chief electoral officer of Northern Ireland to search the whole United Kingdom database. I do not see why it is remotely inappropriate for the chief electoral officer to search the whole United Kingdom database to check that a national insurance number belongs to the person who has claimed it. In the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes, that would indeed be appropriate. I was trying to address the arguments that the Minister put forward later. The last refuge of a Minister in trouble when proposals are being made to simplify and clarify the system is the argument that there are problems under the data protection legislation.

Harry Barnes: It may well be reasonable to argue that all the United Kingdom national insurance registration numbers can be investigated and discovered, but it shifts the ground. The hon. Gentleman argued earlier that all one would need to do would be to look at the Northern Ireland numbers.

Crispin Blunt: Both arguments hold good. If the Minister says that it is inappropriate to check the whole register of national insurance numbersthat is his argument, not mineit is perfectly possible to separate them. However, I do not see why it should be a problem to check the national insurance numbers of the whole of the United Kingdom.
	The Minister's next argument concerned practicality. He said that whether the issue could be resolved against the deadlines the Government and others had set for the changes was a different matter. The deadline is of the Minister's own making. We have just had a debate about deadlines and he has so far refused to be bound by them. He has not been prepared to put one in the Bill. Had he done so, there might be a modicum of merit in his argument. Even then, I do not think that there would be when it comes to deadlines.
	Checking national insurance numbers is simply a question of passing the necessary legislation, complying with the Data Protection Acts if necessary, and having the computer capacity to enable the chief electoral officer to undertake the checks. There is no reason why national insurance numbers cannot be put on the return that people have to complete.
	The Minister's argument about data protection is the final refuge of people who oppose simplifying any of our bureaucracy. I do not accept that the data protection legislation would necessarily apply if the software program were written so as to include only national insurance numbers in Northern Ireland. If, as he suggested, primary legislation were necessary to effect that change and include the numbers as part of the process, that should be enacted.
	I assure the Minister that he would have the wholehearted support of the Opposition to achieve that objective. There is no reason why such legislation could not be put in place to make the register as reliable as it must be. If the register is unreliable and we do not get it right, there will be a question mark over the conduct of democracy in Northern Ireland. We attended to those arguments in Committee, where the hon. Member for South Down made it clear that the future of Northern Ireland and the development of politics there were being affected by electoral fraud. At some stage, there may be referendums on the future status of Northern Ireland. Under the present arrangements, an individual vote can carry huge weight in local elections and can decide which parties will represent people on councils.
	In Committee, the Minister did not even convince himself with his own rhetoric. There is cross-community support for this proposal. The hon. Member for Belfast, East was in alliance with the hon. Member for South Down and united with the Ulster Unionist party, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives.
	The amendments can only further the aims of the legislation. They are aims that the Minister and everyone in the House sharestackling electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. In the main, the Minister has conducted himself with grace during the passage of the Bill. If he wishes to spare himself embarrassment in another place, I hope that he will have the grace to accept these amendments.

Eddie McGrady: As the mover of the amendment, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), said, my party and I have supported the inclusion of national insurance numbers as a form of identification for all electoral purposesregistration, postal voting and, in the appropriate circumstances, casting votes. The reason is simple. We understood the national insurance number to be unique to each individual and to be universal. Including that identification number on a registration form would enable other counter-checking measures to be used in the fulness of time. We would have three telling personal identification detailsthe date of birth, the signature and the national insurance numberall or some of which could be a means of identifying a fraudster.
	The difficulty is that national insurance numbers are not universal, as the Minister explained well in Committee, which was an instruction to me. He gave some strange examples, one of which has been referred tothe teenage girl returning for education from South Africa. I confess that in the short time since our debate in Committee, I have searched my constituency for a childless French woman who has never worked or received benefit. I am not unoptimistic that I will achieve my objective, with all sorts of consequences perhaps in due course, but to date I have failed to identify such people.
	The difference between the debates in Committee and this evening is that the amendment states that national insurance numbers should be used when they are available. I will not go into the cause and effect, but that is a reasonable proposition. In some genuine cases, they may not be available to peopleby that I mean that they do not have such a number, not that they do not know it.
	In my simplicity, I understood that every boy and girl was issued with a number at the age of 16. I may be wrong. I do not know how long the system has been in vogue, but it must be some considerable timeat least a decade. People who do not have a number must not have a pension and must never have worked, paid tax or filled in a tax return. That narrows the gap considerably.
	The proposals in the amendments would seem to allow an exception for people who genuinely do not have a national insurance numberbe they returning expatriates or European or Asian men or women who have not worked but have come to reside and at times to vote in Northern Ireland, where they are most welcome. It would not be an onerous task for the electoral officer, when he receives such an application, to see that the person seeking registration has not got a national insurance number and to telephone to find out why. One could ascertain the validity or the invalidity of the reason.
	The important thing is that the majority of peopleperhaps 97 per cent. or 98 per cent., although that is pure guessworkhave a national insurance number. It is an individual identifier, it is held on a common database and it is readily available to everyone on all sorts of documents that are carried dailya tax form, a pension book and, I think, the Translink card, although I am not sure yet.
	Using national insurance numbers would offer a great opportunity to create a significant database for the electoral system. At this stage, we cannot use signatures. They will not be digitised for some time. However, that does not prevent us from seeking the information. Initially, it will be used for the postal vote comparisons, which will presumably be manual until computers have the necessary sophistication.
	We would be building a database. The national insurance database is enormous and can be checked, and I think that it would throw up any irregularities, which is all that we are concerned about. I am sure that we could cope with that with relative ease using computer technology. For that reason, I support the inclusion of national insurance numbers in the information given at registration, which can then be deployed for other purposes. The amendments propose a pardon for people who do not, for good reason, have a national insurance number. A simple inquiry would resolve that problem, which wipes out most of the arguments for not including the numbers as a personal identifier.

Lembit �pik: I could say that of all the debates in Committee, this was the most weakly argued by the Government, but I am a positive chap and I will say instead that of all the debates it is the one that provides the Minister with a shining opportunity to demonstrate the listening ear of the Government. I am sure that he is all ears as he listens to this debate and will show, once again, that the Government are primarily interested in doing the right thing rather than offering what at times seem to be specious arguments and setting their face against a common-sense proposal that is recommended by Northern Ireland parties on a cross-community basis, as well as by the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats.
	Despite a long debate in Committee, the Minister failed to convince anyoneapart perhaps from himself and some of the loyalists in his partythat the argument against the inclusion of national insurance numbers was reasonable[Interruption.] I realise that I may have just offended some loyalists and I apologise for doing so.
	The arguments have already been set out clearly by previous speakers in the debate, but I have some brief points to add. The restrictions of the Data Protection Acts have been cited as a reason why the Government cannot include national insurance numbers. However, it would indeed be ironic if legislation to protect the public from corruption actually prevented the Government from introducing an electoral measure that would also protect the public from corruption in the form of electoral fraud. I do not believe that that is a reasonable argument behind which to hide. The Data Protection Acts were introduced to help us, not to hinder us. Certainly it cannot be strategically beyond the wit of the Government and their employees to ensure that the legislation is not a barrier to the change that we propose.
	There was reference to the possibility of needing to check through 50 million or 60 million national insurance numbers. As the Minister knows, any computer could do that job in secondsor minutes at most. That would not be a restriction. Furthermore, with a little creative thinking it would be easy to establish a list of those who were eligible to vote in Northern Ireland. The use of a tactical, technical defence to oppose the strategically important proposal to use national insurance numbers as a unique identifier does not stand up to scrutiny.
	The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) gave us an entertaining description of his research to show the small number of people who might be in the same category as the student whose family moved to South Africathe example used by the Minister. An even more extraordinary example was that of the childless French woman, who was not working, not claiming benefit and was married to a Northern Ireland resident.

Des Browne: It got a laugh.

Lembit �pik: Yes, but the point is that we would know that fraudsters were using that approach because there would suddenly be a huge rise in the number of childless French women who were not working or claiming benefit, were married to Northern Ireland residents and were attempting to vote in elections in Northern Ireland. Once there were so many obstacles to cheating the system, the fraudsters might take the radical step of campaigning on the streets, handing out leaflets and canvassing rather than finding such exotic and elaborate means to continue their electoral fraud.
	The Government have an opportunity to help themselves through the amendment. They should not regard the cross-community support for the proposed change as being based on a wish to beat the Minister into submission or as suggesting that he is not committed to doing the right thing. However, as we debate this point, it becomes increasingly difficult for those of us who support the use of national insurance numbers to understand the substantive opposition to the inclusion in Northern Ireland elections of what amounts to a human bar code. There really seems to be no more reliable means than the national insurance number to ensure that each person has a single, unique identifier. It already exists and does not need to be created especially for the election.
	If the Minister has come up with genuinely new and significant arguments, I am sure that we could be persuaded by them. However, he has had a substantial amount of time, in Committee and afterwards, to explain the reasons for the Government's resistance to the inclusion of national insurance numbers.
	With a little effort, everyone can find out their national insurance number pretty easily. They do not need to keep repeating

Shona McIsaac: What is yours?

Lembit �pik: I am being challenged to read my number, but obviously I would not like to see it in Hansard as it might cause me unforeseen problemspeople might forget my name and would just refer to me by my national insurance number. However, I assure the hon. Lady that if the matter was important enough, I could leave the Chamber and find out my national insurance number, even though I was not prepared for that question. Furthermore, I am sure that for individuals in their own homes who are willing to play an honest and constructive part in the electoral process in Northern Ireland, such a matter would be no more difficult than it would be for me.
	I remind right hon. and hon. Members that the change is not being proposed as a blanket, all-pervading necessity. The amendments allow for the fact that it may not be possible to provide a national insurance number. I appeal to the Minister to acknowledge that the amendment is a common-sense proposal that has significant support from both sides of the House, and to show that the Government are willing to listen to sensible ideas and, in the process, ensure that Northern Ireland has a much more reliable system than anything we have so far debated for checking that individuals are who they say they are.

Peter Robinson: I am sure that the whole House realises that the electors of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) have much for which to be thankful in having a Member who is so dedicated in his pursuit of issues that arise in Committee. Where that research might lead the hon. Gentleman, should he discover the person he seeks, only he can tell us. However, although he might have enjoyed that aspect of the Committee's business, I doubt that the Minister is enjoying this moment.
	The Minister has been squirming for some time as we have debated the amendmentand so he should. He had a difficult time in Committee because his past was brought up, dragged before the Committee and thoroughly inspected. Once, the Minister was open minded; he was a free thinker who was allowed to reach conclusions based on his own judgment, but now he bears the heavy burden of office. Now, he has his civil servants around him. Now, he has the benefitenjoyed by manyof having others to prepare the words he has to utter at the Dispatch Box.
	The reality is that when the Minister was able to consider in the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs the merits and demerits of proposals such as those in the amendment, he knew where the argument lay. He knew on which side the weight and burden of the issue came down. He concludedas did everyone on the Select Committee, even those of his colleagues who are also in denial tonightthat the right thing to do was to include the national insurance number on the registration form.
	The Select Committee was not alone in reaching that conclusion. Others held the same view. The Northern Ireland Forum set up a committee to consider the issue and made the same recommendation, realising that the proposal made good sense. The Northern Ireland Office published a review paper which noted that it was worth investigating the inclusion of the number on the form. The paper went even further, by proposing not only that the number should be on the registration form but that people could be asked to give it at the polling station. That is a step beyond my proposal in the Standing Committee and that in the amendment. The proposal is much more moderate than that which the Minister and others have been prepared to align themselves with in the past.
	In the past, people have considered and judged the proposal and found it worthy of merit, but on this occasion it has found the fulsome support of every Opposition party in the House. It managed to unite all the Northern Ireland parties in Committee, and I presume in the House as well. I thought that it was Government policy to achieve cross-community support. If such a consensus were achieved on any other issue, the Minister would almost die for it, yet here he has the Northern Ireland parties jumping up and down in front of him and he waves the proposal away; he does not want it. Why is it that when the Minister has, on a Northern Ireland issue, the Northern Ireland parties all saying, Go in this direction! he decides to turn his back and go another way?

Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman is posing a puzzle to the House. He suggests that the Minister, when he was a Back Bencher, was a seeker after truth and that the burdens of office have borne down on him and he has changed his mind. Might it not be that he is still a seeker after truth and that, as a Minister, he sought the advice of his colleagues in the Government and they said, Above all you must not concede this amendment; the national insurance scheme is in chaos, but you cannot admit that in the House because some English Members also hold that view, and would like to hear it expressed from the Treasury Bench so that they may use it in campaigning to secure the national insurance system so that it is a safeguard of people's identity and can be used in a way that people on both sides of the House tonight wish it to be used in Northern Ireland?

Peter Robinson: The House has heard what the right hon. Gentleman said. Given the right hon. Gentleman's history, I am sure that the Minister will want to be not only a seeker but a teller of the truth, and will want to respond to what has been said. The question is more for the Minister than for me, so I will pass it back to him and listen eagerly to his reply.
	As the hon. Member for South Down said, the national insurance number is a unique identifier. Unlike the signature, unlike the name, unlike the date of birth, it is one for which there is a database, and it is something that can be extracted by the chief electoral officer to identify instances of multiple registration. If the chief electoral officer sees the name of John Murphy in the register half a dozen times in a street or an area, he has no real way of determining whether it is the same John Murphy, but if the national insurance number is to be given, very quickly he will be able to determine whether there has been a multiple registration by the same person and whether action needs to be taken. If the marked register is examined and it is found that someone with the same national insurance number has voted several times, it will identify where multiple voting has taken place, perhaps illegally in the context of anything other than a local government election. The mechanism will allow cross-checking to take place.
	Re-reading the report of our debate in Committee, I was led to believe that the Minister's response did not amount to much more than what in Northern Ireland we refer to as waffle. There was no real substance to the argument that he attempted to marshal against ours. After he had had lunch and a regroupingno doubt of those civil servants who give him advice, of whatever varietythe Minister came up with two points. One was that not everyone has a national insurance number, but he did not say how small was the group that did not have one, and he did not quite overcome the problem that we had posed by suggesting that the question on the form could end with the words (if any). It seems to me that no one will be punished if they do not have a national insurance number and do not write it on the form. The words (if any) appear elsewhere on the registration form, and it would not be inappropriate to insert them in this instance if there was any problem with people not having a national insurance number.
	The second defence that the Minister put up was that not everyone can remember, or find, their national insurance number. The answer to that was simple. Potential electors will not be asked to fill out a form on the doorstep. A matter of weeks will pass between receipt of the form and the date by which it must be submitted, and that will allow people plenty of time to discover their national insurance number.
	The defences put up by the Minister in Committee did not have much substance, so I hoped that he would reflect on the position and be prepared to meet the whole of the Opposition on the matter on Report. I hoped that he would be able to concede to the wish of the parties in Northern Ireland, and I regret it if, as his earlier remarks suggest, he intends to continue to resist it.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) will press the amendment to a Division. I believe that in future the Minister will look back at that Division and be saddened that he allowed himself to be whipped by his civil servants into taking the stand that he is taking. I know that it is not his own inclination. I know his true inclination because I shared with him those amendments in the Select Committee when, in comradeship, we went down the same road together, and I hope that once again, when he has the opportunity to be freer in the way that he acts and speaks in the House, he might return to his former principled position.

Harry Barnes: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has had some good fun at the expense of my hon. Friend the Minister, because my hon. Friend now adopts a different position from that which he signed up to in the Select Committee reporta report which I also signed. If the hon. Member for Belfast, East is so keen on consistency with the Select Committee report, it is unfortunate that when he was given an opportunity to support my amendments Nos. 18 and 19, which were taken from that report, he did not do so. I do not really condemn him for that because people's ideas alter according to their experiences. My position may have changed since I signed the Select Committee report; the Minister's certainly has.
	I am keen on the argument that there should be an identifier, such as a national insurance number. It might be the case that the smaller the nation, the easier it is to sort things out. In Malta, which has identity cards, the identity card number appears on the electoral register. Moreover, a card is issued to an elector, through the police, at each election, and is handed in when people vote. A fresh card is issued afterwards. Therefore, it is possible to develop techniques that make use of good organisation in order to tackle some of these problems.
	In Committee I expressed concernand was taken to task by the hon. Member for Belfast, Eastwhen the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) accepted that the national insurance system was less than perfect. How much less than perfect is it? If some people give their national insurance numbers and their numbers are not confirmed within the system or are not seen to be those that are supposed to relate to them, those people can be disfranchised, or temporarily disfranchised, until the problem is sorted out.

Crispin Blunt: The national insurance system might be in chaos, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, but the suggestion is not that people have no national insurance number, but that they have more than one. That is what needs to be sorted out. Any check of the cross-reference, such as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman, in which the correct national insurance number was included, would almost certainly involve a cross-check to that person.

Harry Barnes: My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) suggested that the national insurance system was in chaos. If that were correct, there would be many serious problems in using the system as a check. If the chaos merely involves people having more than one number, it might be possible to sort out the problem if records are kept showing all the different numbers. Something that lies between being less than perfect and being chaos may be the type of problem we have to consider. If problems exist with national insurance numbers, there is a difficulty with the amendment. In Committee, the hon. Member for Reigate alerted me to that.

Mark Hoban: All the Opposition parties view the date of birth system proposed by the Government as inadequate. We have a better systemthe national insurance system. Surely it is better to use that system, even though it is flawed to an extent, than to rely on a date of birth system, which most Opposition Members believe to be inadequate?

Harry Barnes: I understand that signatures and dates of birth will be used, and it is being proposed that national insurance numbers should be added. The date of birth is relevant because electors will be asked their dates of birth in addition to having to show their cards when they turn up at polling stations. Some people might get that wrong and some people might be disfranchised as a result, but that is very unlikely. It is much more likely that there would be difficulties with national insurance numbers.
	People would have to complete forms and provide their national insurance numbers, signatures and dates of birth, and the one that they would be liable to get wrong is their national insurance number, so the electoral returning officer would have to return to the constituents to check whether an error had been made. When looking at national insurance forms and details and writing them down, how many people would get them wrong, especially in households where several people have to do that? Even if only 1 or 2 per cent. of the population get those numbers wrong, those people would be disfranchised, or they would have serious problems.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East was eloquent in saying that he did not want a system that actually disfranchised people who were entitled to be on registers, and I am keen not to introduce a measure that would remove people from the franchise.

Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman is skating on such thin ice that he could drown at any moment. The logical extension of his argument is that the Government should never produce any sort of form in case people fill it in wrongly. His argument is nonsense on stilts.

Harry Barnes: The Bill deals with voting arrangements, not the others things in which Governments engage. If people apply to the Benefits Agency for benefits and fill in their national insurance numbers wrongly, it is possible to go back to them to get the correct numbers, and it may also be possible to use other records to find the right numbers. That will not be so readily and easily the case with electoral registration. Under electoral registration law, people have a right to be on the registers, and they are technically subject to a 1,000 fine if they are not. That is a fundamental building block of our democracy, and we must ensure that, whatever system we use, we do not disfranchise people even though we are doing other beneficial things. Much in the Bill will get rid of fraud but, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East said, we cannot get rid of fraud at the expense of removing people who are on registers legitimately.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman made that point extensively in Committee. I was not convinced then and I am not convinced nowand so far as I can tell, neither is any other Opposition Member. He has not established why it is impossible for the returning officer to go back to those who may have made a mistake and ask them to check. Will he explain precisely why that is so impossible?

Harry Barnes: If 1 or 2 per cent. of the electorate are involved, the electoral registration officer would be involved in quite a task. He would have to contact people directly himself, or he would have to send canvassers or other people around to discover information about the small number of people who have been missed. Those people are likely to be among those who are also expected to choose identity cards. We would be in danger of creating a group of people who would be deprived and depressed in society. They would find it difficult to obtain identity cards, or they may not be keen to do so. They may be the very people who would get such information and details wrong.
	We should not make the system too complicated. I wanted to make it universal, so that everyone would be involved and have to get a card to vote, but that could be achieved without the problems that the amendment would involve. I am simply saying that it is not beyond peradventure and absolutely clear that that system would work in the way that some of us, with our naive nature, and having listened to Mr. Bradley addressing the Committee, believe that it could.

Lembit �pik: First, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the system will involve a big job just oncethe first time that everyone has to fill in the formand that that is a small price to pay to reduce fraud? Secondly, will he note that the amendments states, if they have one, so we do not want to change the national insurance system? We would merely create a data collection expectation, and the task would diminish massively when we had completed it once.

Harry Barnes: Fresh people will appear on the registers, so they will have to go through the system themselves. Perhaps it would be easier to work with young people who come into contact with their national insurance numbers and their electoral registration rights for the first time, and perhaps few difficulties would occur. People move in and out of Northern Ireland from the Republic and are entitled to voteand from Great Britain as well. So such a system would not be automatically ready and easy.
	I am in favour of modernised electoral registration systems that use all types of new technology. That is why I advocate the rolling register, and we have something like a stopping, standing still and crawling register, which has improved things. However, there is still a tremendous amount to be done, but much of that has to be done on a United Kingdom basis, and I believe that it should be tied in with identity cards, so that we could operate a nice clear system. I am worried that we may spatchcock some ideas on to the existing arrangements and that that will not work well.

David Trimble: I wish to put a couple of things on record. First, my colleagues and I fully support the amendment, and if it is pressed to a Division, we will support it. It is a sensible measure, and we note the strength of support for it on both sides of the House. I shall return to that point later.
	In Committee, the Minister pleaded that one reason for not accepting the proposal was that some people do not have national insurance numbers. However, I draw Members' attention to the question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), who asked
	how many and what percentage of United Kingdom citizens have a National Insurance number?
	The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), replied:
	The vast majority of the approximate 48 million UK adult population have a National Insurance number.[Official Report, 30 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 643W.]
	Therefore, most people are covered by the requirement.
	I express my disappointment at the way in which the Government are conducting business. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) focused his comments on the Minister and on the inconsistency between his past and present positions. However, the Minister is a member of the Government and he is now adopting their position. I am disappointed at their approach because when the measure was first suggested, we strongly expressed the view that although particular provisions were good in themselves, the Bill needed to be strengthened.
	The Government assured us that they would give us a sympathetic response if we came forward with proposals that were, in particular, supported by both sides of the House and the main parties in Northern Ireland. If arguments against the amendment had carried any weight in Committee or in this debate, I could have understood the Government's reasons for rejecting it. However, we are faced with their stock response. They have published the Bill and decided to put up the shutters by fighting any amendment tooth and nail, irrespective of the merits of the argument.
	The merits of the argument are clear. I greatly respect the hon. Member for NorthEast Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and I know that he has done much good work. He made a valiant attempt to defend the Government's position, but I am afraid that although we give him credit for doing so, he was not convincing.

Harry Barnes: I am not sure whether the terminology is appropriate given the position in Northern Ireland, but I am not usually considered to be a Labour loyalist.

David Trimble: Indeed, and I notice that, at the end of his comments, the hon. Gentleman came towards what will be the eventual solution, namely, an identity card system. I am sure that, in time, we will come to that, but how long will the luddites in the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office prevent us from moving towards that solution?
	It is ironic that the current national insurance number system developed out of compulsory wartime identity cards. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) suggested, over the years that system may have fallen into confusion and may need to be overhauled completely. That overhaul will come when we move to a nationwide system of compulsory identity cardsthe issue can be resolved then.
	I do not wish to delay our proceedings, because I know that other Members wish to speak. I simply wish to put on the record the fact that we support the amendment. I have read the Committee debates and I have not seen any reason why we should not. The House has had a little fun at the Minister's expense, but he could put an end to that and do himself and the Government much credit by undertaking seriously to consider our proposal.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) spoke eloquently in Committee about the nature of elections in Northern Ireland. It is well worth repeating some of his sentiments, to explainparticularly to those outside the Housethe widespread support for the amendment.
	For some political parties, elections in Northern Ireland have for many years been an extension of the armed struggle. They are now a substitute for the armed struggle. They are militarised and they are conducted by men with guns who will fight, intimidate, bully, kneecap and sometimes murder to make sure that people turn out to vote in the way that those men wantnot once, not twice, but as many times as they can get them to the polling station in whatever guise they can be bullied into adopting. That is the nature of an election in Northern Ireland, so it is no surprise that the turnout in elections there is continually high: it is the result of widespread militarised fraud conducted by paramilitaries.
	It is splendid that the Government have introduced a Bill which at last attempts to tackle the problem of fraud in Northern Ireland elections. One party in particular undertakes such fraud. It is trying to squeeze out the party of the hon. Member for South Down, and it is in danger of doing so.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a general speech rather than addressing his remarks to the amendment.

Andrew Turner: I thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall move straight to the amendment, but I wanted to put it in context. I thank you for your indulgence in permitting me to do so.
	The amendment would prevent people as far as possible from registering twice when they were not entitled to do so. For example, they might register two different versions of the same name, or the same name in two or three different locations. They might even register in the same name at the same address, in the expectation that the returning officer or his assistants could be persuaded that there was an older and a younger manor an older or younger womanof the same name at the same address.
	The amendment would require that when people registered to vote, they not only furnished their signature, date of birth and name and address but provided their national insurance number. A national insurance number is a unique identifier. There may not be many Lembit piks in Montgomeryshire; there may be more Harry Barneses in North-East Derbyshire; there is certainly more than one Andrew Turner on the Isle of Wight; and I wager that there are many Peter Robinsons in Northern Ireland. However, the national insurance number is a unique identifier that the returning officer can use to check against the name.
	If there were no unique identifier or the name did not match the national insurance number, the returning officer could undertake further inquiries. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) objected to that because he felt it might prevent people from registering in time for an election. However, in these days of a rolling register, it takes just 30 days between filling in the form and appearing on the register. Except in the most extraordinary circumstances, that should be time enough to allow any returning officer furnished with the right resources to check whether the applicant for registration does or does not exist.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) ably related the proposal's history. The Select Committee on which the Minister sat agreed that such a provision was necessary. The hon. Gentleman changed his mind at some point before the Bill was drafted, and he explained his reasons in the Committee that considered it. They were feeble. He said that the difficulties involved in recalling a national insurance number at the time of registration might make it more difficult for people to register. He said that, on balance, it was unwise to proceed with the proposal.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, the Committee was so unconvincedand more important, I suspect the Minister was so unconvincedthat the Minister went away and, between lunchtime and the beginning of the afternoon sitting, came up with new reasons. But they were not reasons to exclude the national insurance numbers proposal from the Bill. He had already given those reasons which, as I have said, he recognised were feeble. All the Northern Ireland parties supported an amendment similar to this in Committee, as did the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, and although it was defeated, I do not believe that the arguments were defeated.
	The only mildly constitutional partyif I can use that phrasefrom Northern Ireland that opposes the inclusion of national insurance numbers chooses not to be represented in the House, and it is the greatest beneficiary of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. It is a scandal that its wish is being pushed through by the Government in the Bill against the advice of all the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland and the people whom they represent, who have suffered so long at the hands of the bullies, gunmen and terrorists whom Sinn Fein represent.
	A date of birth can be duplicated, a signature may be inconsistent and names are frequently repeated, but a national insurance number cannot usually be duplicated. The amendment makes provision even for that tiny minority who do not possess a national insurance number. It would also enable greater scrutiny of postal votes. As we know, many people apply fraudulently for postal votes in Northern Ireland.
	The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire repeated the assertion of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that the national insurance system is in chaos. The Government have not relied on that argument yet, and unless they are prepared to do so, I see no reason why the House should reject the amendment.

Mark Hoban: The amendments would allow the use of national insurance numbers. That would add a great deal more protection to the integrity of the electoral system in Northern Ireland than the measures set out in the Bill. The vast majority of people have national insurance numbers. They are a prerequisite for paying tax and obtaining benefits. National insurance numbers are probably the most complete and easily accessible record of adults in the United Kingdom that we have, and we should not dismiss them lightly. I look forward to hearing the Minister's arguments on why he opposes the amendment because the arguments of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) did not persuade many hon. Members.
	It is right to collect the numbers at the time of the canvass and cross-check them against the national insurance database prior to publication of the draft electoral roll. It is an important check on the validity of the voter's identification. I believe that there is sufficient time between the canvass and the publication of the register to undertake a proper check.
	We should consider three questions in connection with the registration phase: will people know their national insurance number or have access to it; what happens if an elector does not have a national insurance number; and how will we manage access by the chief electoral officer to the national insurance database? Most people either know their national number or have access to it. I cannot say offhand what mine is, but I know that it is on my P60 and my payslip. People who receive benefits will know their national insurance number from their records. The argument that people do not know their number is neither watertight nor valid.
	What happens in the rare instances when people do not have a national insurance number? I have seen the examples that the Minister gave in Committee. Some people may not have a national insurance number, but we will have enough time to go back to them to establish why. I appreciate that, in the first year of the register, additional time may be spent checking out people's arguments, but once the register is in placeit will have a relatively small turnover from year to year, and relatively few people will lack national insurance numbersthe practical long-term arguments against checking them out make that concern invalid.
	On how we manage access by the chief electoral officer to the national insurance database, we have heard about the restrictions that the Data Protection Act 1998 places on access, and about the swathe of data to which he will have access and whether or not that will be irrelevant. Notwithstanding the myriad problems that seem to affect information technology projects commissioned by Governments, it is not beyond the wit of man to cross-check national insurance numbers against a database. It would be helpful if the database of national insurance numbers could cross-refer to the computerised records of tax and benefits. That would allow us to check not just the national insurance number and its uniqueness and validity, but the address that is given on the electoral registration form, so we can ascertain that it is the same.
	I do not accept the argument that the Minister used in Committee. He said the law would have to be changed, which would not be feasible in the time scale. In response to the events of 11 September, Departments have moved quickly in recent weeks to the pressing need to change legislation.
	The amendments offer a powerful way to improve the integrity of the electoral voting system in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will not simply say no and employ flimsy arguments, because so far the arguments have lacked validity and do not stand him in good stead.

Andrew Rosindell: Having listened to the debate, I wonder how serious the Government are about cracking down on electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. Much could be done to improve the Bill, including the use of national insurance numbers, as set out in the amendment. It is astonishing that, despite the broad agreement of all constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, the Government oppose that. Having read the Committee proceedings, I know that the Minister's arguments were weak.
	Of course, not everyone can say off the top of their head what their national insurance number is; I certainly could not. However, to suggest that it is not possible within a 30-day period for someone to produce their number is pathetic. Either the Government are serious about tackling electoral fraud or they are not. There is an opportunity to improve the Bill, and I should like the Government to take that on board.

Nicholas Winterton: I have followed the Bill's progress from some distance, but my interest in Northern Ireland is well known, as the Minister is aware. Following the excellent speeches made by some of my hon. Friends, will my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) speculate in greater detail about why the Government are resisting what are clearly sensible amendments? My hon. Friend makes it amply clear that the proposals are supported by all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, so why are the Government resisting good sense and good policy?

Andrew Rosindell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Government have yet again shown that in certain instances when dealing with issues relating to a part of our kingdom, Northern Ireland, they appease rather than take the action necessary to get a grip on the situation and ensure that democracy prevails against those who have turned to, and continue to employ, solutions that are outwith the democratic arena.
	Although it is important that sensitive information is not disclosed unnecessarily, it is a typically public sector approach to admit that the technology to prevent that is achievable but to discount its use because of artificially imposed deadlines. I have read that in other reports. If something is likely to strengthen a measure, it is worth ensuring that it is included and delivered on time. It is typical of the Government's haphazard approach that they dismiss potentially useful ideas because they would be difficult or inconvenient to implement.
	It has taken some time to produce the Bill. I am astonished that it has taken the Government so long, but judging by comments made earlier in the debate, it appears likely that it will take even longer to be implementedyet another example of the Government's appeasement. The Government are being hypocritical: it is hardly credible to use as an excuse lack of time or the fact that people might not know their own social security or national insurance number. Few complain of not knowing their national insurance number when claiming benefits, so I do not understand why it should be such a problem when they want to vote.
	There is no question but that the Bill will enable significant headway to be made. That is welcome. However, I urge the House to support the Opposition amendment to include national insurance numbers as additional identification markers for electors registering in Northern Ireland. I see no good reason why any of the obstacles that the Government claim exist should prevent the use of national insurance numbers in the electoral registration process.
	Of course it will take time to construct a workable system, but in the long term the ability to cross-check national insurance numbers against those registering to voteand later, if necessary, those votingwill provide an extra layer of security against electoral fraud. Simply giving dates of birth and signatures may prove to be insufficient to stop those who are determined to get around the system. National insurance numbers might not make the system foolproof, but they are unique pieces of information, specific to individuals, that are too valuable to ignore. I commend the amendment to the House.

Des Browne: If the few years that the Government took to consult widely on our proposals and to draft and introduce the Bill can be described as appeasement, I wonder what 18 years of refusal to address the problem can be called. Perhaps the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) can provide a suitable description before the end of the debate.
	Amendment No. 1 requires electors to state their national insurance number, if they have one, on their annual canvass return. Amendment No. 2 terminates an elector's right to remain on the electoral register if they have a national insurance number but fail to provide it. We established in Committee that not everyone has a national insurance number, nor is everyone entitled to one. I acknowledge that the amendments are worded to get around that difficulty, but I remain concerned that they would disadvantage legitimate voters who simply do not know their national insurance number. Faced with the problem of finding out, peopleespecially the more vulnerable members of the communitymight simply return their annual canvass form without including their number. Moreover, the amendments would impose an unnecessary administrative burden on the chief electoral officer, who would be required to check all those cases in which an annual canvass form was returned without a national insurance number to determine whether the elector actually had a number or was entitled to one.
	Amendment No. 5 would require people to state their national insurance number, if they have one, when applying for an absent vote for either an indefinite period or a specific parliamentary election. It is possible, whether legitimately or not, to have more than one number. If someone gave a different national insurance number on their application for an absent vote from that which they had provided on registration, that would be a reason to deny them their vote, even if they held the two numbers legitimately. As I have said before, the chief electoral officer should be given as much useful information as possible to enable him to check absent vote applications against the information that an elector will be required to provide on registration, but the chief electoral officer does not consider that a requirement for electors to state their national insurance number on registration or on their application for an absent vote would be of any additional value to him if he is already able to check the signature and date of birth of electors against his records.

Nicholas Winterton: I have immense respect for the Minister, who is, from time to time, very amusing. Will he state how an individual can legitimately have two national insurance numbers? I might have misheard him, but I think that that is what he just said. Will he explain?

Des Browne: My understanding is that in certain circumstances individuals can be given temporary national insurance numbers, and that they can therefore have two national insurance numbers for different purposes.

Lembit �pik: The Minister gave the same explanation in Committee, and I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. However, is he going to list a series of practical problems as the Government's justification for not accepting national insurance numbers as a form of identification? If he is, does he not accept that those are points of detail and that we are in fact discussing an extremely important strategic opportunity to identify each potential voter using what is, for the overwhelming majority of people, a unique identifying number?

Des Browne: My concern, which I expressed repeatedly in Committee, is that we may inadvertently disfranchise people because of changes in the rules that we make. We had to strike a balance between interdicting fraud and not placing unnecessary obstacles in the way of legitimate voters, and identify where in the use of national insurance numbers such difficulties might be found. However, I am consciousthis was forcefully pointed out to me in Committee and on more than one occasion todaythat all the Northern Ireland political parties represented in the Committee and in the Chamber today are as one on the issue. Mindful of that pressure and consistent with my approach throughout proceedings on the Bill, I have put a number of options to the test again, including data protection aspects, which are not minor, to see if the national insurance number can be used for electoral purposes in a way that does not disfranchise legitimate voters. However, as presently advised, I am not satisfied that they can; until I am, I have no alternative but to resist the amendments.

Crispin Blunt: The Minister concluded his explanation on a wholly inadequate note; his arguments have been similarly inadequate throughout Committee and on Report.
	First, I want to take up the Minister's point that the previous Government did nothing for 18 years. If that had been the case, there would not be a need for consolidation of the legislation now. There are so many different pieces of legislation floating round the system, which, from memory, were introduced in 1983, 1985 and 1989 to try to address the issue of identification in polling stations and elsewhere in piecemeal stages, that there is now a desperate need to consolidate them. The Minister knows well that that is the position of the chief electoral officer.
	Of course, the Bill is welcome, but it only goes so far; on that issue, it could go much further to ensure that the register is, as far as possible, and given the limitations on the current national insurance system, beyond reproach. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) amused the House with an account of attempting to find a person who qualified as someone who does not have a national insurance number. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) made it clear that there was no more reliable way of establishing an individual's identity. It was a joy to see the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) put the Minister through his paces and make him relive his past as a free-thinking member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Indeed, in attempting to reject the amendments, the Minister should bear in mind the fact that the hon. Gentleman was prepared to give him a flexible timetable on the introduction of identity cards. He might ask himself why, on this issue, the hon. Gentleman does not want to give him flexibility.
	The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) made a noble effort to defend the Minister. He confessed that, in 1998, when he was a Committee member, he was naive to accept evidence given to the Committee. I have never thought of the hon. Gentleman as naive, and he was certainly not naive when he agreed with every other Committee member, from every party, in reaching his conclusion in 1998. That conclusion is still shared by all the other parties that have taken part in consultations on the process.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) properly drew attention to the level of intimidation and the issue of a unique identifier. He said that if the chief electoral officer were furnished with the right resources, there is no reason why national insurance numbers cannot be introduced. I wonder what advice the Minister has received from the Treasury. When he concluded his contribution, he said that he had received advice that led to his not being satisfied. He left it at that, leaving the House in the dark about the detail of advice that was so overwhelming that he could not accept the proposals.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) asked just how serious the Government are about the proposals. I must tell him that I take what the Minister is trying to achieve in the Bill at face value. It would be wrong of the House to impugn his general motives. However, why are the Government resisting the amendment? They should consider just who their allies are. There are none in the House, but my hon. Friend will see that, in its evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in 1998, Sinn Fein said:
	Sinn Fein believes that there is a compelling and logical argument to ensure that the electorate have the maximum freedom to exercise their vote as freely as possible. We would therefore argue for an end to the current identification regulations because we believe they restrict the electorate's freedom and impose an unnecessary burden on them.
	Well, that is a surprise. Why is it that, on the issue of electoral fraud, the Minister finds himself in alliance with Sinn Fein, rather than all the other parties in Northern Ireland? He should ask himself that question.

Eddie McGrady: The hon. Gentleman and others have impugned the Government's intention as being in some way an appeasement of Sinn Fein and other groups. Has he any evidence whatever that that is the case? I, who reside in Northern Ireland, have no such evidence. It would be wrong to make such assertion if there was not a reasonable certainty of its validity.

Crispin Blunt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman listened carefully to what I said. I did not say that. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford used those terms, but I have taken some trouble to dissociate those on the Conservative Front Bench from that suggestion, and to make it clear that we take the Minister's intentions at face value. I am not suggesting that he is in league with Sinn Fein in his proposals. I am merely pointing out to the House that it so happens that on this issue he finds himself at one with Sinn Fein, which would no doubt resist the proposal. It is the only other party that would do so. The Minister should consider the position in which he finds himself. I am not saying that there has been some arrangement or that a direct effort has been made to appease Sinn Fein on other issues. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) for giving me the opportunity to make that clear.

Frank Field: Is not the truth of the matter that the Government are in league not with Sinn Fein, but with the Treasury, and that the Treasury has told the Government that the proposal is unworkable because the national insurance system is a shambles?

Crispin Blunt: Having listened to the Minister's arguments in Committee and on Report, it is almost impossible to resist agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman. The Treasury has been behind many inexplicable decisions, when Ministers have been forced to explain the unexplainable to the House and put the case to protect the Treasury. Given the weakness of the Minister's arguments in Committee and on Report, the right hon. Gentleman's explanation is the one that most appeals to me.

Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is making an extremely good case. If the Government seek to justify the introduction of identity cards for the security of the state, and such an identity card could well include a national insurance number, why should not a national insurance number serve to safeguard the country's democracy?

Crispin Blunt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's general point. We have yet to see the Government's proposals for identity cards for the security of the nation. My hon. Friend's point about the security of democracy is extremely important.

Lembit �pik: On the suspicions directed at the Treasury, does the hon. Gentleman accept that however much of a mess the national insurance system might be, it is not a factor in the debate, because as long as someone could find his number, it could be entered and used in a database in Northern Ireland? The state of the national insurance system is probably not the explanation, but that makes the Minister's seeming intransigence on an eminently sensible idea even more confusing.

Crispin Blunt: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am still attracted by the explanation from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). The Government would have to admit that the entire national insurance system was in chaos. If it is in chaos, it is imperative that the Government sort it out. That is no argument against a cross-reference system to help protect against electoral fraud.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) suggested that the Government were putting the shutters up; that they had produced the Bill and were too inflexible to consider change during the proceedings. That is one explanation, which we have encountered too often in the House, when the Government have been defeated on the detail of the argument. In this case the Government have been defeated strategically and in detail. We will press the matter, and if we are not successful this evening, the Minister will not have heard the last of it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 262.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3
	  
	Absent votes and declarations of identity

Crispin Blunt: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 36, after application, insert
	'is made on a form supplied by the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland containing such marking or coding as he may determine,'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 15, in clause 2, page 3, line 47, at end insert
	'(2A) In section 6 (absent vote at elections for an indefinite period) after subsection (1) there is inserted
	(1A) Any application under subsection (1) for an absent vote must be by means of an application form provided by the Chief Electoral Officer; and
	(1B) Any application form supplied by the Chief Electoral Officer under subsection (1A) shall be marked with a bar code unique to each form..'.
	No. 4, in clause 3, page 4, line 4, after application, insert
	'is made on a form supplied by the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland containing such marking or coding as he may determine,'.

Crispin Blunt: It is quite an evening when we reduce the Government's majority to 87. That is indicative of just how badly the Minister lost the argument on new clause 2, in this Parliament of such unhappy numbers.
	I am grateful for the progress that we made in Committee, when the Government changed the Bill to include a requirement to put the date of birth on applications for absent votes. Yet again, I am here to help the Minister. He has accepted our help, to some extent, on one occasion. In Committee, he said:
	Our aim is automated processing of absent vote applicationsthat is, by computerin the time period available, which is different from the time period in Great Britain.[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 October 2001; c. 71.]
	The amendments would achieve precisely that.
	This is an area of key importance in addressing electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. Paragraph 38 of the excellent 1998 report from the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs concludes:
	Absent voting provides a serious threat to the integrity of the electoral system in Northern Irelanda view with which the Interim Review agrees.
	The extent of absent voting in Northern Ireland and the potential for abuse, which was predicted in the report, was confirmed by the statistics that emerged from the 2001 general election. The seats that were contested most fiercely and resulted in gains by Sinn Fein, which has been associated and identified with a fairly ruthless and, in the words of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), a paramilitary organised approach to these issues, included West Tyrone, where the astonishing number of 2,012 proxy votes and 3,427 postal votes were granted. There was a total of 5,443 absent votes. In Fermanagh and South Tyrone, 4,664 postal votes and 1,116 proxy votes were granted, and there was a total of 5,784 absent votes.
	The number of proxy votes granted in West Tyrone is fabulous, and I do not think that any other constituency in the United Kingdom can come remotely close to that figure. Certainly, no constituency in Northern Ireland does, because the next highest number of proxy votes is about half that.
	The constituencies of West Tyrone, Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and Mid-Ulster, all Sinn Fein held, were the ones with the highest number of absent votes. To say that there is a coincidence between those figures and the fact that Sinn Fein is on the receiving end of accusations about an organised approach to the abuse of the electoral system is to take coincidence one step too far.
	The prediction that was made by the Select Committee in 1998 appears on the basis of the statistical evidence to be borne out by what happened in the last general election. Unless the amendments are accepted, as the law standsand will continue to stand under the Bill when it is enactedonly the information with an absent vote application has to be delivered to the chief electoral officer. The Bill does not specify in which form that information is to come.
	If the Minister wants to meet his aim of automated processing of absent vote applications, those application forms will have to marry up with the computer system for the information to be read in the appropriate place. So far, the House has not agreed to include the requirement for national insurance numbers, but if we require the signature and date of birth as factors to be tested between the absent vote application and the register, the forms must enable that to happen. Otherwise, we will be in the same position as we are today.
	In the general election in Northern Ireland, 31,048 postal vote applications and 10,000 proxy vote applications were made, which gives a total of more than 40,000. The chief electoral officer was not able to check, even after the event, whether those applications merited further investigation. In the 1997 general election, the chief electoral officer was faced with a tidal wave of up to 10,000 applications that were produced at the very last moment. There was a only a short time between the presentation of those applications and the general election, and given the way in which the forms are constituted, there was not a cat in hell's chance for the chief electoral officer to check them properly. That is known, so people who wish to abuse the system have an opportunity to do so.
	In Committee, the Minister mentioned the fact that we should not advertise the opportunities to defraud the system by explaining that it was sufficient to provide the necessary information without using the official form, but I am sure that those who wished to do so could work it out for themselves. The abuse of the electoral system is sophisticated and if we leave a loophole, it will be exploited. It is our job to ensure that that cannot happen.
	The Government resisted similar amendments in Committee and squeaked through the Division nine votes to eight, which means that all five Opposition parties were united in their view, including all the parties representing Northern Ireland. The Minister said that the change would be an unnecessary restriction on normal activities as part of the political process. I do not accept that. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the chief electoral officerwho has been in post for 17 yearsbelieve such fraud to be the commonest form of vote stealing in Northern Ireland and it must be addressed. The most effective way to address it is to ensure that the forms on which people apply for absent votes are those issued by the chief electoral officer.
	My amendments would leave it to the chief electoral officer to decide the format of the form, but the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats would require the form to be bar-coded and would place a duty on the chief electoral officer to ensure that the forms could be individually identifiable. It is the chief electoral officer's intention to bar-code the forms, if possible, but I have been convinced by the arguments for flexibility and would leave the decision to him. However, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and I differ only slightly on the issue.
	The issue is important and the Minister needs to address it. He was able to give some comfort to us earlier tonight and I hope that he will be able to do so again.

Eddie McGrady: The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) suggested that the absent vote systemfor the sick and disabled, and for proxy votespresented the biggest opportunity for electoral fraud and I can but agree with that statement. However, statistics are wonderful things and I shall give a few figures from the table mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
	In 1997, before the 1998 report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the percentage of absent votes in West Tyrone was 7.5 and it went up to 9 per cent. in 2001. For Fermanagh and South Tyrone, in 1997 the percentage was 9.3 and it went down to 8.7 per cent. in 2001. In Mid-Ulster, it was 8.6 per cent. in 1997 and fell to 6.7 per cent in 2001. High figures for absent votes are not a new phenomenon but have been going on for many years. I should like to attribute great insight to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, but modesty and the statistics forbid me.
	However, this is a serious issue, and one with which we have wrestled for many years at hustings in Northern Ireland. The difficulty is that it has been traditional for the political parties, in the most honourable and trustworthy way, to help people to vote who otherwise could not go to the polls for one reason or another. The people thus helped have included those permanently on the sick list because of disablement, or those temporarily affected by sickness or injury during an election. Some people, of course, are unable to vote in elections for other reasons, or are elsewhere when election day comes around.
	The phenomenon of trusted proxies is relatively new, but their use as a way to represent people at the polls is valid and is increasing. However, I think that imposing on the electoral officer and his assistants the requirement that each postal vote application form issued should be coded individually would cause practical difficulties.
	Moreover, I believe that the proposal would diminish the ability of people to secure a postal vote when there are genuine reasons that render them unable to vote in person on the day of an election. Perhaps that is its purpose. In my experience, it is very difficult to get the electoral office to issue postal applications in time for people to return them, and requiring the applications to be allocated on a one-to-one basis would make that process even more difficult.
	If all the people unable to get to the polling station on election day had to apply for a form permitting them an absent vote, I believe that the system would break down, as they would have to complete the form, get it attested, and send it back in time for inclusion in the poll. I am fully aware of what goes on in certain areas, and that means that I am reluctant to make the process so difficult. The danger is that many people would be disfranchised if numbered and traceable application forms were introduced.
	It has been suggested that block applications could be given to the existing accredited representatives of political parties, and that those block applications could have a single, identifiable code number that would allow the person or group to whom the block application was issued to be identified. In other parts of the country colours could be used to identify the block applications, but that could cause all sorts of difficulties in Northern Ireland.
	Although the use of a code number would not be foolproof, as no doubt the number would filter out somewhere down the line and duplication could take place, it would be a step towards what is proposed in the amendments. On balance, however, I am unable to support what is proposed in the amendments because I judge that many people who are legitimately unable to vote because they are ill or absent on election day would be disfranchised. In addition, I consider that the proposed system would be unnecessarily complicated.

Lembit �pik: As in the last group of amendments, when I made common cause with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), so also we make common cause on amendment No. 15. This has already been touched on, but let me outline the key reason why I believe, along with the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady, that bar codes are an important evolution in reducing fraud.
	I have been concerned about the opportunities for fraud with regard to absent votes in United Kingdom elections as a whole. Some of the important check steps are absent if people are absent themselves. As such, the people in Northern Ireland for whom the legislation is intended are most likely to go to the point of least resistance once other changes have been made. Even with the Bill's limitations, given that the Government have not accepted our amendments, there will be some improvement in the situation in Northern Ireland. However, if the Government do not accept the proposal in amendment No. 15, we still have the Achilles' heel of absent votes.
	The principle of the proposal was debated in Committee. We stipulated that applications for absent votes must contain a bar code, which are easy to scan and difficult to reproduce. The basic principle is to have each application form for an absent vote marked in a specific way so that applications cannot be photocopied wholesale many times over, as has been the case in the past. Each code will be unique to its particular application form and, by direct implication, to a particular person.
	The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said that about 40,000 absent votes were recorded in Northern Ireland in the recent election. Even if that figure were 80,000, the cost of specifying a particular bar code for each paper would be relatively small, perhaps a few pence per sheet. Given the benefit that would be gained, the investment of a few thousand pounds would surely not be prohibitive. So cost is not an issue. The logistical challenge of creating these forms is well within the Government's technological capabilities, so there is no logistical barrier to having a supply available.
	The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who is resistant to amendment No. 15 and this group as a whole, can be reassured by the fact that we would not have to maintain the existing limitations on availability of forms. We could streamline it and speed it up and still maintain a cohesion as to who gets which form. We could track where large blocks of forms go and ensure that there was no concerted effort to duplicate the applications, which would show up with the bar codes.
	In terms of the cohesion of the system as a whole, bar codes would enable us to spot patterns if a large block of forms was completed in the same handwriting in a suspicious fashion. We could trace patterns much more easily if each form was observed afterwards as having come from a particular block given to a particular grouping.
	There is no absolute certainty, even with bar codes. A fraudster who was inventive and determined enough could still be responsible for a limited degree of fraud. However, it would get much more difficult as the circumstantial evidence would mount up until the people behind the fraud could be identified and prosecuted.
	If bar codes are not introduced, the Liberal Democrats are concerned that we would be unable to make significant progress. As right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall, at present one can use any piece of paper in Northern Ireland or in any election in the United Kingdom with which to apply for a postal vote. When I was a councillor in Newcastle upon Tyne, the incidence of requesting postal votes on anything other than a proprietary form was fairly small. The political parties active in the Newcastle area were assiduous in using the readily available forms from Newcastle council. If we can be sure that honourable individuals and their associated political parties are willing to use these forms at council level, I would like to think that the same would apply to Northern Ireland.
	Sadly, we have just rejected the case for the use of national insurance numbers, which are unique to individuals as right hon. and hon. Members will recall. I fear that we will have to return to that matter in another place. In their absence it makes it even more important that individual absent vote forms are traceable. In that way, we can ensure that forged signatures and so forth can at least be tracked as I described.
	What is the Minister's view of the desirability of tracing individual forms and has it changed since the Committee? If he accepts that there are no logistical or significant costing negatives to introducing bar codes, will he at least consider the case that we have put forward and respond in kind to the many hon. Members who are interested in ensuring that each form can be traced?

David Trimble: At this stage I wish merely to direct the Minister to the comments that he made in Committee at columns 68 and 70, where he said of having bar codes or some other number on the forms:
	The chief electoral officer will in future ensure that applications . . . will be given a unique identifier, be it a serial number or a bar code.
	Evidently the object, as I understand it, is to move to a position where such applications will be processed automatically.
	The Minister went on to say with regard to that processing:
	I cannot stand in front of the Committee and claim that all of that can be done now, because none of it can be. The purpose of the Bill is . . . to match the plans for computers and software so that we will reach a point in 2003 when we can interdict the dishonest use of votes.[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 October 2001; c. 68-70.]
	Will the Minister elucidate on whether he is any closer to realising those proposals? Can he assure us that sufficient resources will be provided to ensure that a system in which an individual identifier is put on the application forms is introduced, and that they can be automatically processed by 2003, in time for the next Assembly election?

Des Browne: I can assure the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that the resources are available and will be made available as necessary to achieve the objectives that have been set out in the planned programme of change for the introduction of the necessary computers and software in the electoral office. That will enable the very things that I spelled out in Committee, on Second Reading, and today to be done in time for the planned elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly in May 2003. As currently advised, we are still on course to achieve that objective. I intend to consult the parties in Northern Ireland and to find a mechanism to keep them involved in discussions about progress towards that objective.
	We had detailed discussions in Committee about many aspects of absent votingproperly so, as there is clearly great concern about abuse of the electoral system. It is not merely a matter of statistics although, interestingly, when one aggregates the statistical evidence for Northern Ireland, the rate of absent voting is not significantly greater than the overall rate for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is concentrated in certain constituencies. The statistical evidence given us by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is also of some interest, in that there has been no consistent rise in the number of absent votes used in certain constituencies.
	Whatever the explanation for these shiftsperhaps we need not dwell too much on an explanation of why there may have been shifts in individual constituenciesthere is well justified concern about the potential offered by the absent voting system for fraud and about evidence that suggests that fraud is being perpetrated by the use of absent votes.
	Apart from that very general concession to the points properly made by contributors to the debate, I shall concentrate on the specific amendments for the remainder of my speech. The intended effect of the amendments would be that any individual application for an absent vote would have to be made on an original form provided by the chief electoral officer. It is on that point that I part company with the supporters of the amendments. I believe that the proposals would hinder individuals who wanted to apply for an absent vote.
	As I said in Committee, the current law does not require people anywhere in the UK to apply for absent votes on a particular form. There is no evidence to suggest that the existence of that opportunity has been exploited by anybody intending or attempting to commit fraud in the electoral system anywhere in the United Kingdom.
	In Northern Ireland, unlike the rest of the UK, an applicant for an absent vote is required to give the chief electoral officer certain information. Until now, the law has been that it is the information that entitles the applicant to the votenot the form on which the information is presented. However, it is currently the norm for applications for absent votes in Northern Ireland to be submitted in the main on formsor copies of formsthat are provided by the chief electoral officer. The chief electoral officer already plans to take administrative measures to ensure that applications for an absent vote will be given some kind of unique identifierbe it a serial number or a bar codeand that can be achieved without either primary or secondary legislation.
	When it comes to tracing to whom the original form was issued, it will not matter if an application for an absent vote was made on an original form or on a photocopy, because the bar code would be copied on the copy. We do not have to insist that all forms are original to find out who took them out of the office. The chief electoral officer has only to record to whom he gave the individual forms. Although electors will not be required to submit their applications on a form from the electoral office, I suspect that it will continue to be the norm for most people to do so. I have no reason to believe that in future there will be a sudden flood of applications on odd bits of paper. However, I am not inclined to remove the possibility that people currently have to make an application in a form other than on an original form or a copy of an original form provided by the chief electoral officer. We live in a democracy and I shall not put into legislation any measures that could disfranchise people.

Lembit �pik: In that case, will the Minister explain why he said in the Standing Committee:
	The chief electoral officer will in future ensure that applications for an absent vote will be given a unique identifier, be it a serial number or a bar code.?[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 October 2001; c. 68.]
	Surely that means that if two forms came in with the same bar code they would not be accepted by the electoral officer.

Des Browne: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman reads my whole contribution, he will see that I made it perfectly clear on more than one occasion during that Committee debate that it would still be open to parties to copy those forms. Although the form would be unique when it was provided by the chief electoral officer, it would still be open to parties to copy those forms as they do at present.
	Earlier today, I made the point that as long as the original form that is copied includes the bar code it will be possible to identify to whom it was given. As I explained in Committee and now repeat, it is not my understanding that the effect of any of the amendments would be that parties would not be able to pick up more than one form from the chief electoral officer. That would defeat the objective of being able to identify to which specific voter a bar-coded form was sent or given. Those who tabled the amendments in the group are not suggesting that parties will not be able to go in and pick up forms in hundreds, or even more, if they are available. In those circumstances, how does amendment No. 3 achieve the objective of making it possible to trace a particular form to an individual voter?

Lembit �pik: The Minister makes a fair point. After reading the fuller contribution that he made in Committee, I recall his views on the subject. However, will he at least recognise that there is a difference of view hereon one side a concern that it is easier if each form genuinely is an original, and on the other the argument that he is makingand will he accept my concern that if any photocopying is allowed, it significantly weakens the opportunities to trace voters who exercise absent votes? I do not want to pursue the matter further; I believe that we have both made our points.

Des Browne: I accept the objective that the hon. Gentleman has now set up, but that objective, which the official Opposition may share, could be achieved only by an amendment that required an individual voter to make application individually to the chief electoral officer for a form and to obtain that form from the chief electoral officer, so that in the first place the chief electoral officer knew which voter was asking for the form and could give a bar code to that individual voter.

Lembit �pik: indicated dissent

Des Browne: Failing that, those who apply for more than one form will need to have in advance the names of the voters who will use those forms. It seems to me, with respect, that we are in danger of creating a level of bureaucracy in relation to absent votes that will be calculatedI use that word advisedlyto defeat the opportunity for many people to vote, either by proxy or by post.

Crispin Blunt: There is an issue about the traceability of the forms that are going out from the CEO to individuals. The Minister's argument that the process would be too bureaucratic is well made, and he talks about the opportunity for parties to photocopy the forms and make application on photocopied forms. That in a sense is not, as I understand it, precluded by amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
	The Minister must still address the fact that the reason why at the moment the forms are in pretty much the same format as those issued by the chief electoral officer is that they cannot yet be checked by computer, but by 2003 he wants to be able to computer-check these things. Unless the applications come in on a specified form once the computer-checking is up and running, the whole point of that computer-checking will be negated.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman makes my point precisely. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 do not prevent parties from collecting one form from the chief electoral officer and photocopying that form, because that would still be a form that had been provided by the chief electoral officer and an application would be made on that form. They are therefore consistent with what we are putting in place administratively, and there is no need for the amendments to achieve the objective that we can achieve administratively.
	The hon. Gentleman is arguing that unless the information is submitted in a format that is identical to the format of every other application, it cannot be checked by the chief electoral officer using a computer. I do not accept that that is necessarily so. In my view, the information provided on the form can be checked against a simple keying process on the computer, but in any event the bulk of the applications will come inI expect that they will continue to do soon forms that have been provided by the chief electoral officer and then copied, or on the originals of those forms. The comparatively small number that may arrive in another form will still entitle people to vote. I do not accept that a flood of applications will suddenly come in on odd bits of paper.
	The requirement for electors to provide additional identifiers in the registration and in any subsequent application will improve the efforts to authenticate absent vote applications. Applications and declarations of identity will require the elector to provide a signature and a date of birth, and those data can be compared with those that an elector provided on registration. That is how the system will operate, and in the light of those remarks I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be persuaded to withdraw the amendment.

Crispin Blunt: I shall reply briefly to this short debate, in which we have dealt with absent votes. The Minister has gone round the same course as in Committee, and we do not yet have a satisfactory answer to the issue that I raised in an intervention. The behaviour of parties that want to abuse the process will change when they realise that to avoid automated checkingthe position that the Minister wants to reachthey need to supply the information on a large scale on forms other than those issued by the chief electoral officer.
	The Minister is entitled to say that, so far, there has been no suggestion that people will not use the forms, or copies of the forms, produced by the chief electoral officer. Plainly, that is all right at the moment because it is convenient. However, rather than make their own forms, parties that want to abuse the process will give 10,000 applications to the chief electoral officer at the last possible moment, so that he is totally overwhelmed and unable to check them because it has to be done manually. The moment the system is computerised, the way to stop computer-checking will be to ensure that the information is presented on a non-standard form. That opportunity exists, and the House should prevent that loophole from being exploited by parties that might be determined to do so.

Eddie McGrady: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a question not of identifying the form, per se, but of determining that the form has been returned by the applicant. That will be based on the signature and the date of birth identifiersand, we hope, on the national insurance identification in futurenot on the actual piece of paper, so individual application forms need not be bar coded.

Crispin Blunt: I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I think that we agree, but the form must be standard if the signature is to appear in the right place to be read by the computer and then to be cross-referenced to the information on the signature that is held on the register, so that people can check that they are the same. I presume that the same is true for the date of birth, as well as for the name. I imagine that it would be impossible for the computer to read that information if it did not appear in a standard place.
	The Minister has said that a simple keying process would deal with that problem, but manual keying processes should be avoided as far as possible, given that 10,000 application forms may have to be checked at the last moment. The Minister will want to consider the issue further. He has had a fairly rough evening so far and I rely on him to reconsider the issue, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Des Browne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Bill has remained largely unchanged since its introduction. [Interruption.] For the edification of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I was merely stating a fact. The Bill will give effect to the proposals in the White Paper Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland, and will provide the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland with additional powers to address the problem of electoral fraud.
	In recent years, there has been growing concern about the perceived level of electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland. Electoral fraud is a crime and the Government are determined to combat it wherever it occurs.
	The Bill represents a broadly acceptable, workable and fair set of proposals to combat electoral fraud. It is the culmination of a great deal of work by, and extensive consultation with, the Northern Ireland political parties and the chief electoral officer.
	I take this opportunity to pay tribute once again to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), for his work on this issue in his time at the Northern Ireland Office. I also pay tribute to all my former colleagues on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Its report made an important contribution to the thinking behind the Bill, as did the work of other bodies such as the Northern Ireland Forum. However, it should not be a criticism of the Bill that it does not implement all the Select Committee's recommendations.
	The Bill is the result of extensive consultation. When taking measures to prevent electoral fraud, we have to ensure that we do not put obstacles in the path of genuine voters. Only if we do that will the measures that we take be acceptable to the House and to the people of Northern Ireland.
	As I said earlier, the Bill's purpose is to provide the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland with additional powers to address the problem of electoral fraud there. In the debate on Second Reading, in meetings with political parties before the Committee Stage and in Committee itself, I have continued to listen carefully to all proposals and suggestions that have been made to me and that hon. Members have argued will improve this Bill.
	I thank colleagues for the hard work that they put into tabling amendments and for the robust and civilised debates that we have had on a wide range of topics. I know that colleagues are as keen as I am to tackle successfully the problem of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland.
	We amended the provisions relating to absent voting. Originally, the Bill stated that applications to vote by post or by proxy must be signed and that the signature on the application must correspond with the signature provided to the chief electoral officer on registration. Now an application for a postal or proxy vote for either an indefinite period or for a particular parliamentary election will have to include an elector's signature and date of birth. Both will have to correspond with the signature and date of birth supplied by the elector on registration. Similarly, a postal ballot paper will have to be signed and an elector will have to state his date of birth or that ballot paper will not be deemed to be duly returned.
	I will continue to reflect on a number of points that hon. Members have made during the Bill's passage and I will consider carefully, with the chief electoral officer, whether those suggestions would help our efforts to combat fraud and improve the electoral system in Northern Ireland.
	I have already indicated my willingness to explore other possible forms of photographic identification that may be used at the polling station. I hope that the Translink smart card, which will be issued to all those aged 65 and over in Northern Ireland from April next year, will meet the security requirements that will enable me to add it to the list of specified documents.
	I have written to the political parties in Northern Ireland to ask for their views on whether there might be value in including in the annual canvass formor any other application to be included on the electoral register in Northern Irelanda question asking an elector whether they were registered or intended to register at another address. I will continue to explore further ways in which data held by other organisations might be used to combat fraud.
	We will consider all these issues, and others that are suggested to us, carefully and with an open mind. The Bill and other measures that have already been taken by the chief electoral officer respond to calls from within Northern Ireland itself and from parties across the political spectrum.
	The Bill sends a clear signal to those people intent on committing electoral fraud that it is a crime that the Government are determined to combat. We have a duty to protect the electors of Northern Ireland's right to free and fair elections. The Bill does that by countering electoral abuse directly and at every stage of the electoral process. However, we will not prevent genuine voters from making their voices heard.
	Tonight, I have heard people arguing that a strict timetable should be imposed for the implementation of certain features of this Bill, but I hope that they now see that such a measure would not necessarily assist the joint aim of interdicting electoral abuse while not preventing genuine voters from making their voices heard.
	I am happy to reassure the House yet again that the measures in the Bill will be implemented as soon as is practicable, and our target for the removal of all forms of non-photographic identification will remain May 2003. However, we will take all the necessary steps to ensure that no one is disfranchised because of the proposals contained in the Bill.
	In all our discussions with the Northern Ireland political parties, we have been constantly reminded of the need to proceed in a careful and considered manner. The Bill has maintained cross-party support thus far because it contains carefully thought-out, workable measures to address the specific problems in the Northern Ireland electoral process. It strikes the right balance between limiting the opportunity for abuse and putting obstacles in the path of genuine voters. I commend it to the House.

Quentin Davies: The Minister began by saying that the Bill had been largely unchanged since its introduction. That does not merit self-congratulation, let alone complacent self-congratulation; instead, it is of considerable concern to everyone inside and outside the House who cares about how this place works.
	The Government have used their massive majority to override the combined suggestions based on the separate wisdom and experience of every other party in the House, including those from Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, Northern Ireland parties rarely find a consensus, but they have this time, and the Government will not listen to them because they have a massive parliamentary majority and do not care. That is shameful. This is not an attractive episode or an edifying moment in Parliament. The phrase that the Minister used should weigh on his conscience.
	I do not think that the Minister is personally responsible for the way in which the legislation has been treated. It is not a case of his being personally arrogant or obtuse; he merely reflects the culture and frame of mind into which the Government have fallen after more than four and a half years of taking for granted a massive parliamentary majority and using a regiment of spin doctors who believe that they can manipulate the press with impunity. They believe that they can close their minds to every other influence and insight that is available and that should be brought to bear in the formulation of legislation. It has not been a good evening for Parliament or the Minister. He was having to thrash around to find excuses for the position that he is forced to defend.
	The first group of amendments dealt with the deadline for introducing photographic identification in Northern Ireland. A deadline is not a matter of principle or even substance; it is an administrative matter. However, the Minister was forced to concede that there were no administrative objections to having a deadline. He said that he had to consult before he could accept the proposal. As the Government consult only on matters of substance and principle, the consultation is immaterial to the acceptance of deadlines. He lost credibility by taking that line.
	We also debated the declaration of multiple addresses when someone chooses to register at different addresses for the purposes of an election. The Minister got out of an awkward spot in Committee by promising to consult in time for the debate on Report, but he told us today that he did not have time to consult properly, so he has contradicted himself.
	We also discussed using national insurance numbers to protect against electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. We were told that the Minister took a different view when he was a Back Bencher on the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee. Once again, he has contradicted himself. That is a serious state of affairs, especially for someone in public life and with accountable responsibilities. To manage to contradict oneself twice during the proceedings of the same Bill in the same evening is unfortunate. I can only feel sorry for him, but when he accepted the role of spokesman for a Government who act in such a fashion, he committed himself to suffering those humiliations. None of us feels the same degree of personal sympathy for him as we would for any other human being in similarly invidious circumstances.
	Despite the fact that I sincerely mean everything that I have said so far, I want to end on a serious but positive note. It would be perverse of the Opposition to vote against Third Reading. If we can get a whole loaf of bread, we will take it, but we will accept half, three quarters or one quarter of a loaf if that is all we can get. We shall continue to battle here, in the other place and elsewhere, but for now we will accept the Bill as a positive contribution to the workings of democracy in Northern Ireland.
	The Bill has appeared at a moment of high drama in the Province. Last week, we heard encouraging news of the first act of decommissioning by Sinn Fein-IRA. Although there is a constitutional crisis, we hope that it will be resolved this Friday

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are discussing the Bill, not other matters. We cannot go wide of the Bill.

Quentin Davies: I was only touching briefly on the context in which the Bill will proceed to the other place and thereafterin an improved form, we hopeon to the statute book.
	Now is an opportune time to reflect on the way in which democracy works in Northern Irelandits mechanisms and safeguards. We all hope that from the context that I briefly described will emerge a rosier future for democracy, and that people will have greater confidence in the devolved institutions of Northern Ireland and their ability to meet the aspirations of the electorate. Now is a good time to debate such a Bill as this.
	It is obvious that among Northern Ireland's many problems is an unfortunate tradition of electoral abuse and fraud more prevalent than is usual elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland Members on both sides of the House have, with their characteristic frankness and honesty, accepted that fact. It lies with us to do something about it, and we are doing so. We are improving the system, albeit not as fully as we wanted to while the Bill was in the Commons. I believe that today we have made a contribution to improving the prospects for the people of the Province and their public life to which the whole House is strongly attached.

David Trimble: The Bill deals with electoral fraud, so the objective should be to introduce measures to curb electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that fraud exists, nor about some of the ways in which it is perpetrated.
	Toward the end of Committee stage, figures were given on the abnormally highin relation to other constituenciesnumber of absent votes cast in certain constituencies in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt, too, that in those constituenciesI have in mind Fermanagh and South Tyrone, MidUlster and West Tyronea significant proportion of the absent votes cast are fraudulent. It is likely that the fraudulent votes in those three constituencies are sufficient to account for the results, and that if we had honest voting and honest elections in Northern Ireland, fewer Sinn Fein Members would be returned to serve herealthough, of course, they do not serve here.
	I am sure that if there had been an honest election in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Sinn Fein would not have won, and that the person who ought to be and is the true Member of Parliament for that constituencymy colleague Mr. Cooper, who fell victim to the fraud of Sinn Fein, which was assisted by the Democratic Unionist party's choosing to run a candidate in that constituencywould be here tonight.
	On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) mentioned the election petition that was then outstanding in respect of that case. Of course, the matter could not be pursued because the case was sub judice. Since then, the election court has made its decision, and I want to share with the House just a few phrases that it used about the conduct of the election and of Sinn Fein in that constituency. The judge referred to extremely reprehensible incidents. He said that
	nothing can excuse the scenes of threatening intimidation which took place . . . Such behaviour
	meaning that of Sinn Fein
	is the negation of a parliamentary democracy.
	He then referred to the disturbance in St. Martin's school, Garrison, a polling station where votes were cast well after 10 o'clock. The court said that the disturbance was
	serious and intolerable, but it was an isolated incident.
	That last phrase was accurate in terms of the evidence given to the court, but it is not true. It was not an isolated incident.
	After the election petition was lodged within 21 days, as it had to be, in the first week of August, there was reliable and credible information that voting had continued at the polling station at St. Joseph's primary school, Ederney, for a period of approximately 10 minutes and that one of the police personnel present was prepared to appear in court and confirm it. However, because that information was not available earlier, it could not be included in the election petition, and consequently it could not be presented to the court. There is every reason to believe that if that evidence had been given to the court, the result of the petition would have been different.
	I referred to that incident to bring out two simple points. First, the rules about election petitions inhibit the giving of evidence. Evidence could not be given in that case because the rules were unduly restrictive. Secondly, and more importantly, the information that became available after the petition was made should have been available beforehand; it was known to the electoral office, but was not conveyed to anyone. We are considering a Bill on electoral fraud that tries to strengthen the law. The primary responsibility of the electoral office in Northern Ireland ought to be to ensure that the system operates properly and fairly but, disturbingly, when we tried to deal with clear misconduct in the election, our experience was that it was not concerned with bringing out the truth or exposing wrongdoing. It was more concerned with trying to show that everything had been okay and that nothing had really happened. Indeed, its attitude was one of trying to cover up the bad behaviour of Sinn Fein and breaches of electoral law.
	Will the Minister reflect on that? If he likes, we can give him more detail about what happened. Will he consider carefully what measures can be introduced in the Bill to ensure that the electoral office carries out its duties properly and sees its first duty as ensuring that the law is observed? If that means ensuring that information is put into the public domain that assists the making of a petition, the office should do so and not try to cover up matters, which was the approach taken in this case.
	There is an opportunity in another place to strengthen the Bill further. The Minister congratulated himself on the minimal changes that have been made, but he should try to consult the parties properly, listen to what we have to say and introduce proposals that ensure that electoral law is observed properly and that we get honest results. That would be a significant achievement, and the Minister could then congratulate himself.

Lembit �pik: As I said at the beginning of the Committee stage, in my many years as Liberal Democrat Northern Ireland spokesperson, I have seen Ministers come and go, each more brilliant than the last. Looking at the Minister, I can honestly say that I see a very nice man. Frustratingly, however, he does not listen. As other Members have said, I heard him congratulate himself on the fact that the Bill has changed very little; that made me think of an iron fist in a velvet glove, frightening Labour Back Benchers into supporting things which, if they had reflected for a moment, they would not have supported.
	In the Chamber, the majorities in votes on this matter have been large, but in Committee, many Divisions were nine votes against eight. In terms of political parties, the Minister was losing votes by five parties to one on many of the arguments. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made the point that cross-community support has been garnered for many ideas which the Government have rejected. As a consequence, the Bill will not be as good as it could have been with the benefit of that input.
	With regard to national insurance numbers, the Minister once again failed to justify his refusal to adopt the proposals made by so many people and so many parties. We had a debate on bar codes, then he had the audacity to say that we should now see that our proposals were unhelpful, but his arguments were not particularly robust. On time scale, his desire for flexibility made him inflexible in dealing with our proposals. Any business would set a time scale and regard that as a proactive gesture that would focus the team to achieve the launch date that had been outlined.
	I have learned a great deal in the debate. I have learned that although she challenged me on whether I know my national insurance number, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) knows hers by heart. I hope that the shame that she must now feel will cause her to encourage the Minister to think again. I have learned that our winning some of the arguments was insufficient to cause the Minister to think again. That is a matter of concern. I have also learned that there is cross-party support for the essence of the Bill. On occasions, that cross-party support, at least on the Floor of this House, has not been sufficient to convince the Minister to think again.
	On balance, the Bill is good, but it could be even better. On balance, the Bill will have an impact, but not the full impact that it could have had with those further proposals. There is work to be done in another place, and no doubt the Government will be challenged on some of the familiar territory that we covered in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I congratulate the Minister on his ever-patient and ever-pleasant demeanour. In the words of Arnie Schwarzenegger, We'll be back.

Eddie McGrady: This is an important Bill to eradicate the scourge that has persisted for many years in the democratic system in Northern Ireland. It could have gone a wee bit further, but it is difficult to achieve a compromise between securing the integrity of the voter and not preventing legitimate voters from exercising their right. We will revisit many of these matters.
	I do not agree with the Minister's comment at the start that no change has been made during the passage of the Bill. There may be no change in the wording of the Bill, but the Official Report of the Committee and the debate tonight is riddled with promises and undertakings, which the Minister will have to live up to, after he persuaded us to withdraw our amendments. We will hold him to that.
	I offer the Minister, his predecessor and their current and past staff a great deal of thanks for the many, many hours of consultation that they gave us and other parties. However, the Minister did not take on board the fact that we and other parties in Northern Ireland had a unity of purpose and a unity of mind that were unique. He should have grasped the historic moment when it was available to him.

Nigel Dodds: This has been an important debate on an important Bill. I am only sorry that despite the many promises that were made by the Government and the previous Government to bring the matter to the Floor of the House sooner, and the consultation that was carried out, we have had to wait until now for the Bill to appear. We may need such legislation much sooner than envisaged in view of some of comments about the Assembly elections that are due in May 2003. Many people in Northern Ireland would welcome that prospect.
	It is important that as well as new legislation to strengthen provisions against fraud, the necessary resources are made available to the chief electoral officer. We may have new provisions, but if we do not have the resources to implement them, we will be no better off. Lack of resources for the chief electoral officer has been one of the problems in tackling electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. One of the things that has struck me
	It being 10 o'clock, Mr. Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [10 July].
	Question agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Third time, and passed.

DEREGULATION AND REGULATORY REFORM

Ordered,
	That Mr. Ian Stewart be discharged from the Select Committee on Deregulation and Regulatory Reform and Mr. Dai Havard be added.[Mr. Heppell.]

CIVIL SERVICE (MALADMINISTRATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Heppell.]

Christopher Chope: In this short debate, I wish to concentrate most of my remarks on one example of maladministration in the civil service: the Government's regulation of Equitable Life. I want to comment on the welcome decision of the parliamentary ombudsman to begin his investigation and I also wish to address issues of financial compensation.
	When I first wrote to you on 17 October, Mr. Speaker, seeking this debate, it was immediately after publication of the Financial Services Authority report on the review of the Equitable Life Assurance Society from 1 January 1999 to 8 December 2000. That report disclosed clear prima facie evidence of maladministration by the regulator. I intended to use this debate to examine the decision that the ombudsman had communicated to all MPs in September, which was that he did not intend to investigate until after publication of the Penrose inquiry. Fortunately, that is no longer necessary following the ombudsman's announcement on Monday evening.
	It is worrying that the ombudsman seems to have been given the impression by the Government when they announced the establishment of the Penrose inquiry in August that they were not going to publish the FSA report until after Penrose had reported in the second half of 2002. However, I do not blame the ombudsman, because I suspect that he was the victim of Government spin and that the Government intended not to publish the FSA report until after Penrose but then had to change tack in the light of pressure from the Opposition, the engineering union and other union interests to which they sometimes listen.
	I am delighted that the parliamentary ombudsman reconsidered his position when the FSA report was published and that he has now announced the terms of his independent inquiry, which are set out in his letter of 29 October to all MPs. The ombudsman's announcement came shortly before the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gave evidence to the Select Committee on the Treasury. Naturally, the members of that Committee pressed her on the issue of redress for policyholders. After considerable prevaricationI quote not the official record, which is not yet available, but today's pressthe Minister eventually said:
	If the Ombudsman reports that an injustice has been carried out to policy holders, then of course it is something we will look at.
	Today's newspaper headlines went much further: Treasury boosts hopes for Equitable payout, said The Guardian; Treasury may help victims of Equitable, said the Daily Mail; and Minister to consider redress for policy holders, said the Financial Times.
	The Financial Secretary's statement to the Committee was a very welcome advance on the answer that she gave to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on 15 October. He had asked whether the Government would
	establish a scheme to compensate policyholders of Equitable Life for losses sustained by them as a result of regulatory failure.
	The Minister replied:
	We have no plans to do so.[Official Report, 15 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 850W.]
	However, she did not offer policyholders anything yesterday that went beyond that which she is required to do under the Treasury's own rules on financial compensation for redress where it is recommended by the parliamentary ombudsman.
	I shall quote some of the key paragraphs of the rules set out in the Treasury's own document, Government Accounting 2000, at chapter 18, which is entitled Losses and Special Payments. Paragraph 18.7.4 states:
	The question of whether financial redress should be paid may arise (a) as a result of a recommendation by the Parliamentary Ombudsman following investigation of a complaint referred by a Member of Parliament.
	Paragraph 18.7.5 states:
	If the Department concerned accepts that maladministration has occurred and that financial redress is appropriate, the general principle should be to provide redress which is fair and reasonable in the light of all the facts and circumstances of the case.
	Paragraph 18.7.24 states:
	Claims for compensation may arise on grounds other than actual financial loss or costs. These include the following . . .
	(d) Compensation for the loss of a physical or financial asset, or a reduction in its value: an example might be where it is claimed that the department had failed to carry out a regulatory function properly or that its action or inaction had resulted in the creation of a false market.
	Obviously, that is the paragraph under which the policyholders who will be seeking redress for maladministration will be looking.
	Paragraph 18.7.27 states:
	Claims arising under 18.7.24d are likely to be particularly contentious and the amounts speculative. Such cases are therefore particularly difficult, potentially very repercussive and should be approached with particular care. If financial redress is felt to be justified, the approach might be a payment in general recognition of the detriment suffered as a result of official failure rather than to put the complainant into the position it is argued he or she might have been if the official failure had not occurred. Such a position is inevitably highly uncertain.
	The paragraphs that I have quoted should ring alarm bells among policyholders who may have had their hopes raised by some of the headlines in today's papers. I hope that the Minister will be able to state clearly and unequivocally that if the independent parliamentary ombudsman recommends financial redress, the Treasury will pay up. Otherwise, people will rightly think that the compensation regime for maladministration is grossly asymmetrical with the penalty regimes operated by the Treasury and by the Financial Services Authority.
	As ever, the Treasury is quick to take but slow to give. By way of an example, this week we have seen reports that the FSA has imposed fines on Prudential amounting to 650,000. That money is to be taken from the with-profits fund of Prudential and will go straight to the Treasury. It is extraordinary that the burden is being borne by the with-profits fund of Prudential rather than by the shareholders, but that is a separate issue. That 650,000 will go straight to the Treasury as a penalty.
	Every day, individual taxpayers and VAT-registered businesses pay fines and penalties imposed by the revenue-collecting arms of the Treasury. Surely the least the Treasury can do is to accept that where its own maladministration leads to loss, those losses should be met in full.
	Another example of asymmetry came out before the Select Committee on the Treasury. The Economic Secretary, when asked a series of questions about what the Treasury had been doing in relation to Equitable Life in 1998, said that all the papers relating to that period had been passed on to the Financial Services Authority as part of the service level agreement, and that she did not have the information to enable her to give an answer. Mr. Speaker, you and I know that we are required by the Inland Revenue to keep our tax records going back seven years. It is a pity that those same rules do not seem to apply to the Treasury itself, so that when the Economic Secretary is asked questions, she has the resources to enable her to answer them.
	The next aspect on which I hope the Minister can help is the time scale for the investigation by the parliamentary ombudsman. We are told that the average time that it takes to carry out an investigation is 43 weeks. That is for an average case. In the case of Equitable Lifewhere the issues are complex and the potential compensation very significantthe time scale could be far longer. The parliamentary ombudsman is so far limiting his investigation to the period from 1 January 1999 to 8 December 2000. I hope that he will extend that period in both directions.
	Nobody, least of all those policyholders who took out policies in 1999 and 2000, would want a decision on their cases to be delayed because of the limited resources of the ombudsman. That is why the Governmentindeed the Treasuryshould give the ombudsman all the resources he needs to do his job. Last year, the ombudsman had his second-highest work load ever and, from my constituency correspondence and my experience of rapidly plummeting standards of administration under this Government, I know that this year's referrals could be at an all-time high. Individual learning accounts, naturalisation, attendance allowance, war pensions, the Public Guardianship Office, housing benefit administration, foot and mouth, the Valuation Office; all of those feature in my constituency case load.
	I do not believe that a Member of Parliament's role should be that of an expensive progress chaser for Government Departments. Surely our proper role should be to scrutinise policy and legislation. In all the years that I have been in the House, we have never been so overloaded with routine administration affecting our constituents. I spoke informally to the Minister earlier about a constituency case that has involved one problem after another. I hope that, if nothing else, he will be able to tell me that that has been sorted out and that such a case will not arise again.
	The parliamentary ombudsman is understandably concerned about overlap of effort between his investigations and the work of Lord Penrose, but it is becoming clear that the Treasury neither expects nor wants the latter to apportion blame or consider issues of redress. Yesterday in the Treasury Committee, the Economic Secretary used the words:
	If Lord Penrose decides that issues of compensation are within his terms of reference.
	She spoke as if she had not given him those terms of reference in the first place. Why did the Government specifically not instruct him to investigate allegations of maladministration and consider compensation?
	Yesterday, the Economic Secretary even made the ludicrous suggestion that individual policyholders might take legal action against the regulators? Was she serious, one asks. It was pointed out to her that from the end of November it will not even be possible to sue the Financial Services Authority for negligence unless it can be established that there has been bad faith. The Government are putting this regulator beyond the law, and in so doing they are making the role of the parliamentary ombudsman even more crucial.
	In my submission, one key issue that Lord Penrose and the ombudsman need to address is the letter issued by the Treasury insurance directorate on 18 December 1998. That guidance letter endorses Equitable's decision to seek to solve its problems by charging the costs of the guaranteed annuities to the with-profits bonuses of clients without guaranteed annuities. That was clearly a high-risk policy, given that there were two separate contracts covering with-profits bonuses and guaranteed annuities. Had the Equitable board decided in 1998 to follow a similar course of action to other mutuals with guaranteed annuity problems, such as Scottish Widows and Clerical Medical, its policyholders would now be substantially better placed.
	While Scottish Widows and Clerical Medical decided to sell out to a major financial group capable of standing behind their businesses, the Equitable board decided not to do that. To what extent was that because of the Treasury guidance, which remained in place until it was suspended on 20 July 2000? It remained on the Treasury website right up to that date.
	The 1 January 1999 start date for the period being examined by the parliamentary ombudsman seems increasingly artificial. The same people were regulating Equitable Life in 1998 and 1999, but from different locations. It must surely make sense to widen the ombudsman's area of inquiry.
	I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance that he will look into the following specific issues that have been raised with me by policyholders. They are only some of many. Is it right that the Personal Investment Authority ombudsman should refuse to deal with complaints of mis-selling, as there may now be a compromise? The person who raised that with me invested almost 500,000 in Equitable during and mainly towards the end of 1999. He was assured by the Equitable Life field representative that he need do nothing to protect or preserve his investment. He wants his case considered by the PIA ombudsman. Does the Minister think that a reasonable request?
	Is it right that the FSA should be giving no advice to individual policyholders about whether to accept a compromise? Is the FSA certain that, in the event of a compromise being accepted by the policyholders, Equitable Life will be able to withstand large class actions alleging general mis-selling of with-profits policies, brought by those who have left the society? Unless there is some certainty about that, even if the compromise is accepted, Equitable Life might go into insolvency.
	What is the Minister doing about all those civil service pensioners who made investments under the civil service additional voluntary contribution scheme when one arm of Government, at least, knew that there were serious problems with solvency at Equitable Life?
	One civil service pensioner has written to tell me that, as late as October 2000, Equitable Life was described in the relevant Home Office notice as a leading life assurance company. The Home Office permanent secretary told him that when his inquiry was raised with the Cabinet Office, as managers of the civil service AVC scheme, the reply was:
	It would be wrong and inappropriate to seek to provide information on the basis that the Cabinet Office or employing Departments are in some way entitled to privileged information that is not available to the pensions industry more generally. There is a clear difference between the role of the Cabinet Office as managers of the civil service AVC scheme and the regulatory role carried out elsewhere in Government.
	That may well be so, butand this goes to the heart of the matterwhy did the regulator keep to himself information that should have been shared with policyholders and investors?
	The latest annual report of the parliamentary ombudsman highlights his concern at
	the length of time it takes Departments to respond to inquiries and to the statement of complaint which is the preliminary to an investigation, and also to resolve issues, especially issues of redress, after we have sent them a draft report on our investigation.
	Paragraph 1.9 of his annual report says:
	Among my own concerns is that Departments are putting increasing burdens upon citizens (for example, through self-assessment of income tax) with severe penalties if those burdens are not discharged, while allowing themselves generous periods of time to carry out their own functions and with perhaps only token redress if they overstep those periods.
	What guarantee can the Minister give that the Treasury will co-operate enthusiastically with the ombudsman's inquiry, and that the ombudsman will be allocated sufficient resources to enable him to reach proper conclusions within a reasonable time scale?
	I shall stop there, because otherwise the Minister will not have time to respond. However, this is an extremely complex subject, and I hope that he will lobby his colleagues to ensure that we can have a fuller debate on it in Government time soon.

Christopher Leslie: The title of this evening's debate is extremely broad, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on securing parliamentary time on the subject of maladministration in the civil servicea big area to investigate. I welcome the opportunity to present the Government's views to the House.
	The process of scrutiny of public service delivery often involves criticism of policy, and the assertion of different opinions and views. However, it is important at the outset to distinguish between a debate on the merits or otherwise of a particular policy, and the examination of whether a given policy has been effectively executed and administered.
	Parliament has a long tradition of holding the Executive to account for administrative shortcomings, and in many ways this is as valuable as scrutinising changes in policy. Maladministration, whenever it occurs, can not only tarnish the reputation of public services in general, but cause harm and disadvantage to individual consumers, taxpayers and citizens. It is therefore vital that administrative systems are sufficiently robust and well conceived to prevent, or lessen the likelihood of, failures.
	I shall touch on the existing methods by which complaints of administrative failings can be pursued, and also briefly on how the Government are working to improve both complaints procedures and the capabilities of the civil service in general.
	First, however, the hon. Gentleman may find it helpful if I address specifically the points that he raised, focusing primarily on Equitable Life. I would like to express my sympathy for all the Equitable Life policyholders who have been affected by recent events. My colleagues in government and I fully understand the distress and anger that they feel. Equitable Life raises important issues that deserve consideration by a full independent inquiry, and that is why, as hon. Members will know, my hon. friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury announced on 31 August that such an inquiry had been set up under Lord Penrose.
	The inquiry will consider what lessons can be drawn for the conduct, administration and regulation of the life assurance industry. We recognise that it is important that lessons are learned from what has happened. The inquiry will allow us to do that, and Lord Penrose's terms of reference will enable him to consider events from all angles. They are:
	To enquire into the circumstances leading to the current situation of the Equitable Life Assurance Society, taking account of relevant life market background; to identify any lessons to be learned for the conduct, administration and regulation of life assurance business; and to give a report thereon to Treasury Ministers.
	It is clear that the problems at Equitable date back many years. By virtue of its wide-ranging remit, Lord Penrose's inquiry will be able to look back as far as necessary to ascertain the origin of the problems and investigate those issues that he thinks have a bearing on the subject regardless of where and when they arose. In particular, he will be able to look carefully into the actions of Equitable itself, the regulators and other key players over the years. We expect Lord Penrose to report in the second half of next year.
	I understand that the investigation that the parliamentary ombudsman has announced will be limited to looking at the actions of the Financial Services Authority between 1 January 1999, when the FSA took over responsibility for regulation, and 8 December 2000, when Equitable closed to new business. The Government and the FSA will, of course, co-operate fully with the parliamentary ombudsman's investigation into the regulation of Equitable Life. I shall have more to say later about the parliamentary ombudsman, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will have the resources at his disposal to conduct an efficient and effective inquiry.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of compensation following any conclusions by the ombudsman. It does not make any sense to anticipate the findings of the investigation, but if the ombudsman were to make such a recommendation the Government would consider it carefully. The hon. Gentleman raised several other specific issues connected with Equitable Life and the FSA which I shall certainly draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary.

Christopher Chope: Does the Minister understand that the Penrose inquiry has a remit to consider issues of maladministration by the regulator and issues of compensation and redress? The Economic Secretary yesterday was ambivalent on those points. If there is doubt about whether the terms of reference go that far, will he put pressure on the Economic Secretary to ensure that Lord Penrose has a specific remit to include those issues in his inquiry?

Christopher Leslie: As the hon. Gentleman knows, those are primarily matters for my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, but my understanding is that Lord Penrose's remit is broad and he will be able to consider several specific issues. In the course of his inquiry, I am sure that he will address many of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised this evening.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the specific case of a constituent of his. I am grateful for the notice of that issue that he was able to give me earlier today. It is a complicated case and I shall try to give a brief outline. I understand that an appeal was due to have been heard by the War Pensions Appeal Tribunal on 6 October 1998, but that that hearing was adjourned because the pensioner concerned had presented several new pieces of evidence and the chairman wished to give the War Pensions Agency the opportunity to consider them.
	Because of the complexity of the associated medical issues, the agency took some time to consider the new evidence carefully. In parallel, the appeal hearing was rearranged for 27 October 1999, but was postponed at the request of the pensioner concerned. A new date was set but the hearing had to be adjourned, again at the request of the pensioner concerned. In the interim, the pensioner lodged a separate appeal, on different grounds, but the hearing on that had to be adjourned because the War Pensions Agency had not provided full documentation to the tribunal. I understand that the agency's chief executive has apologised for that omission. He did, however, take steps to ensure that full documentation was available to the tribunal when it heard both of the appeals on 10 July 2001. The tribunal's decision was reserved, but the pensioner concerned has now been sent a copy of its decision.
	I have been assured that the hon. Gentleman will receive a direct response in the near future to the particular points he raised with the Lord Chancellor's Department.
	I come now to the wider issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. Most public services have well developed complaints procedures, through which members of the public can pursue a grievance of maladministration and seek redress. Increasing numbers of organisations follow consumer-oriented policies, and the Government must be no exception to this.
	Progressively, many more public services consult their users and publish the standards of service that they aim to achieve. By accepting the principle that people who use services have a right to information and a right to complain, the public sector is endeavouring to focus on achieving greater consumer satisfaction.
	It is clear that more work needs to be done, but proper handling of complaints is central to the Government's programme to modernise and improve public services, and greater responsiveness to people's needs is a key objective. There are also a number of statutory bodies through which the public may raise complaints even if internal departmental complaints processes have been exhausted without satisfaction. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrationnormally known as the parliamentary ombudsmanis such a body, and assesses claims from members of the public who complain that they have suffered injustice because of maladministration by Government Departments or certain other public bodies. The ombudsman also deals with complaints about problems in obtaining access to official information.
	The ombudsman is independent of Government and is not a civil servant. He is an Officer of the House of Commons, appointed by Her Majesty, and reports directly to Parliament. Complaints to him are confidential. His investigations are private, and he does not charge for his services. At present, complaints to the parliamentary ombudsman must be made through a Member of Parliament.
	In general, the term maladministration is taken to mean poor administration, or the incorrect application of rules. For example, maladministration can usually include avoidable delay, faulty procedures or failing to follow correct procedures, and the term can also include the failure to tell individuals about any rights of appeal that they might have. It can cover unfairness, bias or prejudice, the giving of advice that is misleading or inadequate, and the refusal to answer reasonable questions. Covered too by the term are discourtesy, the failure to apologise properly for errors and mistakes in handling claims, and not offering an adequate remedy where one is due.
	The ombudsman does not investigate complaints that are about Government policy or the content of legislation. Policy is for the Government to determine, and legislation is for Parliament to decide. Criminal investigations, the decisions of courts and public service personnel matters are also outside the remit of the ombudsman
	In 1999, following representations from the members of the ombudsman's office, we announced a review to determine whether the present arrangements were in the best interest of complainants and others. That was against a background of moves towards more integrated public services, and an increasing focus on the needs of the people and organisations that use these services.
	The review team consulted widely and its report was published in April 2000. We published a consultation paper on the report a few months later. In July this year, I announced that the Government's conclusions would respond to the consultation paper. We were satisfied that there was broad support for the review's main conclusions, and that we would therefore replace the existing arrangements with a more unified and flexible ombudsman body for central Government, local government and the national health service, other than NHS pensions. In due course, we will publish proposals for the precise powers and accountability of the new bodyto which the public will have direct accessand on whether its jurisdiction should be extended beyond the bodies subject to the jurisdiction of the existing ombudsmen.
	The effective design and specification of administrative systems to deliver Government policies is crucial, and there is a constant process of learning the lessons from the mistakes of the past. Clearly, Ministers have always relied heavily on the capabilities of the civil service to ensure that policies are implemented effectively, efficiently, transparently and fairly. In order to improve the capacity of the civil service to deliver improved outcomes for the public at large, a reform programme is under way, building on the firm foundations of the impartial and competent service that has served the nation so well for so long.
	Under-achievement and poor performance can be tackled in a number of ways and it is clear that the parliamentary ombudsman, Parliament and the Government's reform programme all have a part to play. There have been many examples of maladministration in the past. Although we all strive to ensure that the machinery of service delivery is as perfect as possible, there will no doubt be problems in the future as well. The best that we can do is to try as hard as possible to improve our systems, learn from the past, and reform and modernise public services so that they match as closely as possible the aspirations and needs of the people whom we all represent.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.